What an incredible, bureaucratic, outrageous waste of time and money. I can’t think of a single, substantial element that has come out of these talks. Any Catholic 10 year old could tell you what the ecclesial sticking points are, and they are not going to change.
Why can’t we spend our time and money doing something more constructive. I hope that not a single cent of my tithe ended up on this wasted 40 year endeavor.
I second Justinmartyr’s post above. Rome is too polite (or politic) to say it out loud, but no one there seriously entertains any hope for reunion with the AC any longer. That is a dream that died in the 1970’s. It would probably be better for the conservatives still wandering around the ruins if Rome came right out and said they were not going to waste more time talking about reunification with liturgical unitarians. The only possible exception would be for the TAC which continues its very discreet conversations with the Holy See about being accepted into communion as a sui juris Uniate Anglo-Catholic Church. Now that would be an interesting development.
But broadly speaking Rome no longer looks to any of the Protestant sects with hope for union. Now they are looking Eastward…
I’m sorry you feel that way, “Justin Martyr.” Some us feel rather differently; that, for instance, the report is “breathtaking,” as it affirms “that which has been achieved during the past forty years” and envisions “practical ways in which we may live into these achievements” (Tony Clavier). And our RC friend Nicholas Jesson weighed in with some rather helpful riffs on the text, as well
(http://covenant-communion.com/?p=118). Catch the ecumenical fever, man… the same “fever” for unity and truth, held together and not apart, on account of which “you,” after all, died.
Well said Justin Martyr and Ad. I used to be convinced of the certainty of eventual reunion but those feelings waned as progress was so slow. It collapsed altogether when I began to listen to EWTN – not that they speak for the Pope – and got a better perspective from their side. I’m sorry Christopher but ARCIC is only of value to academics. In hindsight, I don’t see how we can have effective discussions with other denominations about their theology when we are so obviously clueless about our own.
Christopher Wells:
As an Anglican I’m not against unification. I view all baptized Christians as my brothers and sisters — as Scripture so clearly states. I didn’t kick the Romans out of the “one holy catholic church.” Since Anglicans didn’t sign the divorce papers, I don’t see how they can bring about the reunion. The terms are unacceptable to both parties, and to say otherwise is deception.
What is breathtaking about this ecumenism? What promising steps do you see in the pipeline? Do you see the papal bulls and Vatican I that divided us being repealed? Enlighten me on what we are looking toward…
No. 4 – Nicolaus – Can’t tell for sure whether you are writing from an RC or Anglican standpoint, but you are certainly right that many in both groups are clueless about their own beliefs! EWTN is certainly not a friend of any kind of ecumenism. However most RCs that I know, including some clergy, hope for closer relations.
ARCIC may have some merit for academics, may encourage a few Anglo-Catholics, and may get the laity and clergy goosey with the occasional localized Anglican-Roman Catholic “Kum-Ba-Ya” moment. However, the terminal and insurmountable challenge is the Episcopal Church’s episcopate. Their unified voice, such as it is, over 20+ years mitigates against every paper gain of ARCIC.
This is from a 1987 Pastoral Letter from the US House of Bishops: “God is fashioning a Church that is willing to lay aside all claims to the possession of infallible formulations of truth”. That is what they agreed to say as a group…and as a group they have lived it out ever since. Totally post-modern. Totally anti-Catholic. And if they really meant “all claims…of truth” (and many of them did) then it is also totally anti-Christian. Individually, the bishops are all over the map both in terms of their thinking and in terms of their actions, as we see in the present disorder of the Episcopal Church.
IN the present reality ARCIC is nothing more than a charming fantasy, and its continuation is one that dishonest Episcopal bishops will vote to “affirm” while having no commitment to its principles. (And yes I AM saying that the majority of Episcopal bishops lack principles). The House of Bishops of TEC has shown, and continues to show, that the aims of ARCIC are totally useless/unacceptable and can never gain approval at an episcopal level. As long as there is no principled (and disciplined) commitment to shared and articulated truth in the US House of Bishops, ARCIC, and all other attempts to gain theological and ecclesiastical consensus and unity…including the Anglican Covenant…are destined for failure.
PS: Expect no change from the US HOB later this week.
Rob k wrote: “What inside information do you have to the effect that RC authorities do not take the efforts of ARCIC and IARcum seriously?”
Would you acknowledge that unless Anglicans acknowledge the papal infallibility among other doctrines, unity is a non-starter? Since neither side will back down on these issues, how can ANYONE take these efforts seriously? (With the exception perhaps of theologians and bureaucrats who earn a living in the related ecclesial departments.)
Brad Page: If the Anglican Communion was to throw out the Episcopal Church, resulting in a doctrinally conservative church, would this change anything? If so, what unification could there be considering the centuries of doctrinal disagreement.
Thanks Rob K. Of course, many in both our traditions–among them leaders, both bishops and our seminary magisters (among others)–are theologically unengaged in too many ways, esp. about “essentials.” ARCIC is not, however, only pertinent to academics. Growing out of our history of closer relations, for instance, has come a certain gift of mutual prayer and intervention in one another’s communities that can only be a gift of the Spirit, and without which I worry about the health of our (and all) Christian communities. When +Rowan went to Rome last November, e.g., to meet Benedict, the RC lay people of Sant’Egidio cam eout in droves to worship with us few Anglicans (I was there) at the Basilica of San Bartolomeo (dedicated to the memory of all the Christian martyrs of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and housing many of their relics) to celebrate a Vespers that was given to memorializing the Anglican martyrs of Melanesia (seven religious who were murdered as they worked for peace in the midst of civil war in the Solomon Islands). And it seems to me that this is the kind of mutual encouragement in holiness that John Paul II had in mind when he asked us–all Christians–to focus again on the martyrs; and when he noted that now, already, the one Church experiences its unity in the deaths of these sacrified ones. (Ruth Gledhill shot a few minutes of video of the service at San Bartolomeo, incidentally; it’s available on YouTube.)
So, sorry Justin M, but there are hundreds of “substantial elements” that have come out of these “talks” (returning to your first post above), so that they are much more than mere talks. If you actually read the IARCCUM text, you already know this. And I would emphasize that the envisioned–and in many cases already practiced–mutual cooperation and accountability that is commended has in its sites the spiritual formation, in and after Christ, without which our professed “faith” comes to little. How then to take steps in this, necessarily ascetical direction together, and so surrender various prides and conceits of self-sufficiency? See especially along these lines the second half of the text, “Towards Unity and Common Mission.” A few of the items that they suggest that Anglican and RCs do *more of* together (from para 96ff.), with a view to this end of spiritual conversion (as a precursor to whatever “reunion” may be down the road, in God’s good time):
We can visibly express our common faith by
– joint programs for formation of families (giving up therefore
‘control’/ownership of them as our members)
– public profession of faith together
– same baptismal certificate
– note interchurch families and learn from them
– attend one another’s Eucharists and *respect the discipline of our churches,* while nonetheless renewing awareness of “spiritual communion” (thus giving up triumphalism of ‘our’ church and learning how to mourn our divisions)
– more non-eucharistic worship (giving up some of the routine to which we are accustomed, our own pattern of offices, etc.)
– pray for the local bishop of the other church and ask God’s blessing on them (giving up forgetfulness, again, and the pretense of being the only game in town)
– pray for the pope/AbC (giving up the congregational/provincial ecclesiology that we inculcate by not praying for the wider Church in a specific way)
We can jointly study our faith by
– reading SS together
– engaging in joint training for ministry (**giving up autonomous/independent seminaries and opting instead for ecumenical seminary training? This is effectively what Berkeley at Yale and Duke, among others, already do, to great effect, in my
experience; both could be improved however by greater formal involvement of other ‘communities’)
– common hermeneutical principles
– shared sponsorship of lectures and worshops
– make sure agreed statements are widely studied (give up more narrowly Episcopalian curricula for ‘our parish and diocese’ etc.), incl. the ones from ARCIC that are awkward right now, e.g. _Church as Communion_ and _Life in Christ: Morals, Communion and the Church_
– shared resources: libraries, staff
We can cooperate in ministry by
– creating a context of trust and friendship in the mutual love of Christ (give up fear of one another, tired stereotypes, etc.)
– invite observes to synodical and collegial gatherings and conferences (again, giving up autonomy)
– consult one another as fully as possible before crucial decisions “in matters of faith, order, and moral life”
– encourage bishops to undertake *joint* study of recent RC and Anglican documents
– and a range of other activities at the episcopal level can be envisaged, e.g.: Episcopalians join RCs on their ad limina visits to Rome; consult when clergy move from one communion to the other; workshops, joint formation; co-operation in education; attending ordinations
– encourage religious orders with ecumenical vocation;
– train lay ministers together (catechists, lectors, teachers, evangelists)
– joint music and youth ministries
And of course shared witness in the world
– MDGs
– “ongoing conversion” and Christian processes of conflict resolution
– joint Anglican-RC church schools!
– creative efforts with other Christian communities via usual ecumenical fora
– open to new groups, movements, associations
Rob,
The issue of reunification can’t be approached (at least on the RC side) from the POV of the clergy on the street. The RCC remains an institution with a top down management order. If you keep your ear to the ground among those either in the various Roman Dicasteries / Curia or with good connections in them (I occasionally correspond with a few who have connections) you will get some ideas about where things are going. In the case of the AC they are going nowhere quickly.
Even if you restrict yourself to the mainstream media it is almost impossible to draw any sense of real optimism from the RC side. +John Paul II suspended the ongoing talks for a while over the issue of W/O. It is generally known that the former prefect of the CDF (ex Holy Office) repeatedly expressed great skepticism to his then boss about the enterprise. He felt is was better to continue the discussions with a different mission statement to the effect of promoting better understanding and mutual tolerance rather than the increasingly problematic idea of corporate reunification. I have no reason to believe that his opinions have significantly changed since his move to the upstairs office.
Further evidence comes form the ongoing (albeit very hush hush) discussions between the Traditional Anglican Communion and Rome. The TAC is attempting to get recognition as a uniate Anglo Catholic Church. Such discussions would not even be going on if Rome had any real hope of corporate reunion with the AC since the creation of a uniate Anglican Church would be a considerable barrier to reunion with the AC. For reference just take a look at the trouble between Orthodoxy and the Romans over the Eastern uniates. Rome generally acknowledges that to have been a mistake which is one of several reasons why they are moving very cautiously with the TAC. They know that if/when they let them in it’s going to be a very public slamming of the door in the face of the AC. One reason B-16 is open to the idea is that he does not see the AC as being a western equivalent to Orthodoxy and therefore he does not anticipate the long term problems that uniatism created with the Eastern Churches. It’s also worth noting that Ratzinger supported Anglican uniatism back in the early 80’s in response to W/O. +John Paul II was not prepared to give up on the AC though.
I do share your frustration with the spirit and letter of texts like the one you quote from the HoB in 1987. That also is a bummer.
But the mistake you make is assimilating ARCIC to TEC in its latest ‘moods’ at the official level (and even here you cherry-pick to display the most depressing picture possible), rather than the reverse. As Oliver O’Donovan (among others) has argued, we need to interpret ARCIC’s vision as a call to interdependent life without which all claims to Anglican ecclesiality fail; hence ARCIC is a call to catholic ecclesiality, and the Windsor Report bears a striking resemblance to the former’s conclusions. Many untheological types in TEC thought WR was cooked up by “conservatives” to answer the Gene Robinson crisis, but it was actually in the ecumenical hopper long before.
Of course, if you are not Anglican, or are outside the formal Communion, then what I am saying will likely not move your heart and mind. But what is at stake in New Orleans this week is precisely this larger vision of “communion.” ARCIC, and now IARCCUM, are surfing on the crest of this same agenda, and, for “communion” types like myself, they are incredibly handy, and providential, teaching tools, without which the hope of any Anglican contribution to larger ecumenical reconciliation seems… to disappear entirely.
Christopher Wells,
[blockquote] We can visibly express our common faith by [/blockquote]
I am warmed by your obvious and ernest wish for the union of all Christains. But I am constrained by reality. What common faith are you referring to? I was not aware that Anglicanism has a faith you all agree on amongst yourselves much less with anyone else. Kindly name a single article of faith binding on all Anglicans. Not a whole list. Just one will do. A single article of faith that you are required to accept to be an Anglican and take communion.
#9, JM–
I recommend you read ARCIC’s Gift of Authority, which, in a Vatican II mode, parses infallibility in terms of the Church indefectability.
We should also note, however, the lack of new infallible statements from popes since Vatican II. Many have suggested this is because such statements would be deal breakers for the Orthodox, who are indeed Rome’s #1 priority. But others could potentially gain from Rome yielding a bit on this.
Frequently noted as well in this field in Ratzinger’s allowance in an old essay (c. 1978 I believe) that in the event of reunion with the East, they would not be asked to themselves affirm these later “infallible” statements by the magisterium, but rather only adhere to pre-schism affirmations. Not sure if that may still be tenable. But JPII acknowledged the papacy as a principle stumbling block, and asked all of us to advise him/them how to “reform” the office. So it seems to me that we can all pull in the same direction here. “Semper reformanda!”
We are asked to confess our sins and recite the creed before receiving communion.
Again, we do have a discipline problem; I grant you that. No thoughtful person could look at Anglican messiness–the standard Spong example will do–and not shudder on many counts.
I am a Thomist, however (ergo Augustinian), both of whom took St Paul to be saying in I Corinthians that eucharistic communion can hurt those who do not commune in faith and having confessed their sins. So that’s my belief. We ought to preach fear of the Lord more, because in fact he will “come to be our judge” as it says right there in the creed.
But of course, all the “churches” could do with more such homilies, couldn’t they?
Re: 16
CW,
While I would agree with most of your points, I don’t see any binding article of faith in your response. The Creed is now optional as a matter of fact (if perhaps not yet in theory) in TEC. And while Spong is certainly the poster boy for TEC’s heresy he is not alone. There are a lot of clergy and yes even bishops who omit parts or even the entirety of the creed now. Then there is the declaration cited by by Brad in his #8 in which TEC in an act of breathtaking perversion seems to have pronounced the very concept of “truth” to be heresy.
Sorry but my skepticism remains. Rome is not going to restore communion with an entity that stands for nothing except standing for nothing.
Christopher Wells, I am of course in favor of the ecumenical action list given by you. As an aggrieved mere christian, it would be a dream come true if clergy on both sides of the divide encouraged those actions in their dioceses. The described incident of unified prayer was remarkable.
I must add that the list seems to be targeted at lay-people, and doesn’t address the overarching causes for division. I don’t see any progress on this front.
A number of people have hinted at TEC and its action as the greatest barrier to unity. As much as I am against the actions of the reappraisers, I don’t believe TEC is to blame in this respect. The lack of accord started long before homosexuality and WO were even issues for debate. Remember that the RC Church found the Anglican Communion to be deficient centuries before the onset of modern liberalism. I think that even if we did away with TEC the underlying issues would remain.
Ecumenism is Anglo Catholics hoping that if they just say the mass in a sufficiently traditional way they’ll be accepted by the RCC. Ecumenism is the RCC hoping that a warm embrace of Anglicans will lead to a warm embrace of Mother Church, and all the offending doctrines that go along with it. Not going to happen without unacceptable compromise on either side.
Again I second JM’s post (#18). His points are sound. Wishful thinking will not overcome concrete barriers. I will also take this opportunity to add yet another reason why Catholic-Anglican reunion is dead. This was so obvious to me I never even thought of posting it.
If Rome restored communion with the AC it would be the end of any hope of reunification with the Orthodox.
Re: 19
JM,
CW’s 15 is correct. But again it needs to be reiterated that Rome does not see the AC as a sort of Western Orthodox Church. +Benedict XVI sees in Orthodoxy a firm adherence to the faith of the first millennium. That is not the case with Anglicanism. I know of very very few Anglicans (and almost no Episcopalians) who would accept the Catholic Faith of the seven councils as practiced in the age of the undivided church. Thus CW’s point while accurate is also moot as it does not apply to the AC.
Ad O. wrote: “If Rome restored communion with the AC it would be the end of any hope of reunification with the Orthodox.”
Ad Orientem, I’m curious as to what you mean by this, I know very little about the subject. What would Orthodoxy find objectionable in an AC/RCC union?
Re: 22
JM
Orthodoxy does not permit communion with non-Orthodox. If the AC were accepted by the Roman Church as being once again part what they claim to be “The Church” it would certainly constitute an insurmountable barrier to reunification with Orthodoxy unless the AC renounced a lot of things and accepted the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils. Unlike the Roman Church, Orthodoxy is not generally quite so reserved in our dialogue with other confessions. When VGR was consecrated most (possibly all) Orthodox Churches severed all ecumenical discussions with TEC. That remains in place to this day. The Russian Church similarly terminated ecumenical dialogue with the Lutheran Church of Sweden when they approved gay marriages. One CofS bishop in a public statement expressed dismay that the Russian Church did not even bother to discuss the matter first. Met. +Phillaret responded that the Swedish Church did not consult with the Russian Orthodox Church before agreeing to bless homosexual marriages.
The bottom line though is that Orthodox do not hold communion or common prayer with heterodox Christians. It is prohibited in the canons of the early church. The AC at present does not even remotely resemble the ancient church. Most of what the various theological schools in Anglicanism today subscribe to is considered heresy.
Christopher Wells (#13): Sorry to have been such a downer. I’ve just worked too closely and too long with Episcopal bishops. I do hope that all churches talk to each other and find commonalities that will move toward greater unity in matters of Christian Faith and Order. However, each must speak to each other with honest and authentic voices about what they do and do not believe. The value of “nuance”, which Episcopal bishops have elevated to the level of trickery (if not deception), has been overspent for twenty or thirty years now and has resulted in much of the current disorder (and distrust) within the Episcopal Church.
You may be right that there is reason to hope for a more unified and faithful future for ecumenism beyond the current “mood” (as you put it) of the Episcopal Church. This “mood” however has been with us for awhile and does not seem to be abating anytime soon. Furthermore, the current situation leads me to believe that Anglican unity will be degrading faster than ever in the months ahead, so that in the decades ahead Anglicanism will be spending more of its time and energy trying to find unity and coherence within the remains of its own broken communion.
One need only look and the disarray in earlier posts over the real presence of Christ in the Eucharest to see the disarray in the AC. Indeed the promotion of lay presidency proves the point.
1. Ad orient.: my American prayer book indicates that all will say the creed at every celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and at morning and evening prayer. If there are bishops etc. that permit the skipping of this, that is a scandal. But I have already indicated above that this sort of undiciplined disorder cannot be the future of Anglicanism if it is to have a future, and that the *hope* of the current Windsor Process is to address that.
I do not think “Rome should restore communion” with the entity TEC. As I have already said, if there is hope for TEC, it is in a renewed, catholic and evangelical communion of the sort envisioned by WR and repeatedly welcomed–in principle and in various details–by Roman authorities. It may be a long shot in any number of respects; but I am here, so I work for it in hope, with joy, else this would not be a Christian vocation and I would go somewhere else.
I don’t know who you are–perhaps an ex-Anglican turned Orthodox who is invested in your analysis of things being right? I do not begrudge you your ecclesial home, wherever it may be, nor do I deny your own experiences and encounters with various forms of Episcopalian and Anglican unfaithfulness (how could I?). I am a defender of traditional ecumenism, however–taught by many Episcopalians to be this way, and upheld by them in prayer and mutual action, including in my parish and diocese and in many other networks, all of which are public on the “Covenant” website to which I referred earlier. And I am glad to have met and worked alongside for some years now many in the Catholic and Orthodox and other churches who are still working and praying for the same thing–a common labor that is not in fact based first nor in the middle nor at the end upon calculations as to chances of success. As the ecumenical movement has always held, it is first a matter of spiritual posture: obedience to our crucified Lord, and prayer for conversion after his holy example. This is what John Paul II called all of us to in Ut Unum Sint and many other writings, and we have many analogous Anglican, Orthodox and other authorities that have held out the same. I would invite you to join me in this vocation and pray for the Anglican Communion, and your own communion of churches; and if you cannot pray for Anglicans, then leave us to God rather than the exhausting criticisms of blog wars that seek not to build up but to tear down.
2. Justin: if you read the actual documents produced at the highest level, you will find that “real progress” has been made on most if not all of the outstanding “causes for division” between RCs and Anglicans. What IARCCUM proposes is that we “grow together in unity and mission” (as the title of the new document would have it) by taking steps to receive and act upon this theological progress. As we walk more together, including in our teaching (see the seminary examples above; and also the IARCCUM suggestion that bishops conferences regularly consult with each other, as the English RC and C of E bishops did in 2006!), outstanding issues will be worked out, as the ecumenical movement and human experience suggests.
As for your definition of “ecumenism,” for either Anglicans or RCs, it is woefully out of step with what our churches have been saying since Vatican II, and simply reveals your lack of familiarity with the documents. The RCC again and again (even in the person of pope Benedict, most recently to my knowledge in his remarkable address to Lutherans in Cologne in 2005) denies, for instance, that “return” to mother Church is the goal; rather, “conversion” on all sides is what is called for. Yes, Rome would seek an acceptance of their position on some things (e.g. the universal primacy of the pope). ARCIC has long defended this very thing, however; and I already noted Rome’s own concern to reform this primacy in a way that is somehow at once faithful and reconciling. So either/or soundbites have pretty much no traction with any of this. Again, all I can say is pray for unity and form your mind toward it if you care about it. Many have expended their lives on the cause, some still with us, and been formed in sanctity as a result.
3. Brad Page (24): I don’t disagree with anything in your first paragraph. As to progonsotications of coming Anglican fissiparousness, we shall see. I pray that this is not the case, but it may be. As I have said, much depends on this week. If a visible Communion around Canterbury with a distinct majority of Anglicans from all provinces, “north” and “south,” does not perdure, it will be hard for me and catholic-minded people like me to see how whatever may remain is still the Anglican Communion (and our “ecclesial” hope sin this place will be shattered). If it does perdure, more or less, then we will continue to work toward its strengthening with the AbC and primates as articulated in the Windsor and Covenant processes, as an investment in the healing of the wider body of Christ.
Christopher #11, I much apprecuate your suggestions for RC-Anglican cooperation. Here in the High Country my parish and the local RC parish have had a formal covenant relationship for over thirty years. While there is less activity in the present than in the past, the present pastors of our churches and a local Lutheran pastor have been intentional in seeking to build closer bonds. At my parish we pray every Sunday for St. Elizabeth’s Roman Catholic Church, our covenant parish; and Fr. Joe at St. E’s includes in the Sunday Mass prayers “for our Episcopalian and Lutheran brothers and sisters with whom we have a covenant.” The clergy meet regularly for lunch and fellowship. Some from the other parishes come to St. Luke’s Taize Service. Members regularly attend each other’s book discussioin groups and cooperate in local social service activities. A joint Blessing of the Animals is held on St. Francis’ feast day. The Lutherans and the Episcopalians offer a Summer Bible School together. There is much more we could do, and I pray that these contacts will grow. There is so much theologically, sacramentally and liturgically we do have in common, and while respecting the differences, we can certainly love, pray, and serve the Lord together.
There is still the fact that we (Rome) formally found Anglican orders to be invalid.
There is the fact that we (again, Rome) can no more recognize the ordination of women than we could recognize a baptism performed with champagne or a Eucharist performed with angel food cake: the matter is invalid for the sacraments in question. The Orthodox are not any more yielding on this than we are.
There is the fact that the Anglican Communion has priests and bishops who publicly deny elements of the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds and cannot be disciplined for it, apparently. One hundred fifty years ago Spong would have been deposed. Two hundred fifty years ago he’d have been excommunicated. Four hundred years ago he’d have been burned. Which I don’t insist on.
Most important in my view, when you say Real Presence and we say Real Presence, we have not established that we mean the same thing.
All of which is to say that we are not One as Jesus and the Father are one, and as things stand those in communion with Rome and those in communion with Canterbury do not seem to be getting closer.
Rob,
The term “real presence” refers to the change in the matter of the bread and wine during the divine liturgy (Mass). Orthodox (and Roman Catholics) believe that the consecrated communion is the actual physical body and blood of Jesus Christ, not just a symbolic representation thereof. Nor do we accept the Lutheran concept of the infusion of the divinity of Christ into the consecrated elements whilst maintaining the form of bread and wine. The Latin Church employs the term transubstantiation for the process.
No. 32 – AO – Thanks for coming in. I was, however asking Ed to compare the RC and Anglican versions, or theologies, of the Real Presence. It’s pretty well agreed all the way around that Christ’s true Body and Blood are present, but as transubstantiation itself is explained by St. Thos. Aq., and other medieval commentators, that presence, though “substantial” occurs in a non-natural, sacramental way. It’s much closer to the Orthodox and Anglican way of explaining the Real Presence than people give it credit for. Not only are His Body and Blood present in a non-natural way, but that presence is not localized in the species themselves – a hard concept to get one’s arms around, but that is how it goes, nevertheless. And certainly most Anglican practice treats it as much more than a mere symbol. Check the catechism and the liturgy itself. There have been Zwinglian influences in the Church, however, with some people asserting now and then the “Real Absence” The Lutheran theory is interesting. While it does assert the Real Presence, that presence depends on the recitation of the words of institution, and remains with the sacrament only until its administration. That is why Lutherans, with rare exception, do not reserve the sacrament, as do RCs, Orthodox, and Anglicans.
What an incredible, bureaucratic, outrageous waste of time and money. I can’t think of a single, substantial element that has come out of these talks. Any Catholic 10 year old could tell you what the ecclesial sticking points are, and they are not going to change.
Why can’t we spend our time and money doing something more constructive. I hope that not a single cent of my tithe ended up on this wasted 40 year endeavor.
I second Justinmartyr’s post above. Rome is too polite (or politic) to say it out loud, but no one there seriously entertains any hope for reunion with the AC any longer. That is a dream that died in the 1970’s. It would probably be better for the conservatives still wandering around the ruins if Rome came right out and said they were not going to waste more time talking about reunification with liturgical unitarians. The only possible exception would be for the TAC which continues its very discreet conversations with the Holy See about being accepted into communion as a sui juris Uniate Anglo-Catholic Church. Now that would be an interesting development.
But broadly speaking Rome no longer looks to any of the Protestant sects with hope for union. Now they are looking Eastward…
I’m sorry you feel that way, “Justin Martyr.” Some us feel rather differently; that, for instance, the report is “breathtaking,” as it affirms “that which has been achieved during the past forty years” and envisions “practical ways in which we may live into these achievements” (Tony Clavier). And our RC friend Nicholas Jesson weighed in with some rather helpful riffs on the text, as well
(http://covenant-communion.com/?p=118). Catch the ecumenical fever, man… the same “fever” for unity and truth, held together and not apart, on account of which “you,” after all, died.
Well said Justin Martyr and Ad. I used to be convinced of the certainty of eventual reunion but those feelings waned as progress was so slow. It collapsed altogether when I began to listen to EWTN – not that they speak for the Pope – and got a better perspective from their side. I’m sorry Christopher but ARCIC is only of value to academics. In hindsight, I don’t see how we can have effective discussions with other denominations about their theology when we are so obviously clueless about our own.
Christopher Wells:
As an Anglican I’m not against unification. I view all baptized Christians as my brothers and sisters — as Scripture so clearly states. I didn’t kick the Romans out of the “one holy catholic church.” Since Anglicans didn’t sign the divorce papers, I don’t see how they can bring about the reunion. The terms are unacceptable to both parties, and to say otherwise is deception.
What is breathtaking about this ecumenism? What promising steps do you see in the pipeline? Do you see the papal bulls and Vatican I that divided us being repealed? Enlighten me on what we are looking toward…
Nos. 1 & 2 – What inside information do you have to the effect that RC authorities do not take the efforts of ARCIC and IARcum seriously?
No. 4 – Nicolaus – Can’t tell for sure whether you are writing from an RC or Anglican standpoint, but you are certainly right that many in both groups are clueless about their own beliefs! EWTN is certainly not a friend of any kind of ecumenism. However most RCs that I know, including some clergy, hope for closer relations.
ARCIC may have some merit for academics, may encourage a few Anglo-Catholics, and may get the laity and clergy goosey with the occasional localized Anglican-Roman Catholic “Kum-Ba-Ya” moment. However, the terminal and insurmountable challenge is the Episcopal Church’s episcopate. Their unified voice, such as it is, over 20+ years mitigates against every paper gain of ARCIC.
This is from a 1987 Pastoral Letter from the US House of Bishops: “God is fashioning a Church that is willing to lay aside all claims to the possession of infallible formulations of truth”. That is what they agreed to say as a group…and as a group they have lived it out ever since. Totally post-modern. Totally anti-Catholic. And if they really meant “all claims…of truth” (and many of them did) then it is also totally anti-Christian. Individually, the bishops are all over the map both in terms of their thinking and in terms of their actions, as we see in the present disorder of the Episcopal Church.
IN the present reality ARCIC is nothing more than a charming fantasy, and its continuation is one that dishonest Episcopal bishops will vote to “affirm” while having no commitment to its principles. (And yes I AM saying that the majority of Episcopal bishops lack principles). The House of Bishops of TEC has shown, and continues to show, that the aims of ARCIC are totally useless/unacceptable and can never gain approval at an episcopal level. As long as there is no principled (and disciplined) commitment to shared and articulated truth in the US House of Bishops, ARCIC, and all other attempts to gain theological and ecclesiastical consensus and unity…including the Anglican Covenant…are destined for failure.
PS: Expect no change from the US HOB later this week.
Rob k wrote: “What inside information do you have to the effect that RC authorities do not take the efforts of ARCIC and IARcum seriously?”
Would you acknowledge that unless Anglicans acknowledge the papal infallibility among other doctrines, unity is a non-starter? Since neither side will back down on these issues, how can ANYONE take these efforts seriously? (With the exception perhaps of theologians and bureaucrats who earn a living in the related ecclesial departments.)
Brad Page: If the Anglican Communion was to throw out the Episcopal Church, resulting in a doctrinally conservative church, would this change anything? If so, what unification could there be considering the centuries of doctrinal disagreement.
Thanks Rob K. Of course, many in both our traditions–among them leaders, both bishops and our seminary magisters (among others)–are theologically unengaged in too many ways, esp. about “essentials.” ARCIC is not, however, only pertinent to academics. Growing out of our history of closer relations, for instance, has come a certain gift of mutual prayer and intervention in one another’s communities that can only be a gift of the Spirit, and without which I worry about the health of our (and all) Christian communities. When +Rowan went to Rome last November, e.g., to meet Benedict, the RC lay people of Sant’Egidio cam eout in droves to worship with us few Anglicans (I was there) at the Basilica of San Bartolomeo (dedicated to the memory of all the Christian martyrs of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and housing many of their relics) to celebrate a Vespers that was given to memorializing the Anglican martyrs of Melanesia (seven religious who were murdered as they worked for peace in the midst of civil war in the Solomon Islands). And it seems to me that this is the kind of mutual encouragement in holiness that John Paul II had in mind when he asked us–all Christians–to focus again on the martyrs; and when he noted that now, already, the one Church experiences its unity in the deaths of these sacrified ones. (Ruth Gledhill shot a few minutes of video of the service at San Bartolomeo, incidentally; it’s available on YouTube.)
So, sorry Justin M, but there are hundreds of “substantial elements” that have come out of these “talks” (returning to your first post above), so that they are much more than mere talks. If you actually read the IARCCUM text, you already know this. And I would emphasize that the envisioned–and in many cases already practiced–mutual cooperation and accountability that is commended has in its sites the spiritual formation, in and after Christ, without which our professed “faith” comes to little. How then to take steps in this, necessarily ascetical direction together, and so surrender various prides and conceits of self-sufficiency? See especially along these lines the second half of the text, “Towards Unity and Common Mission.” A few of the items that they suggest that Anglican and RCs do *more of* together (from para 96ff.), with a view to this end of spiritual conversion (as a precursor to whatever “reunion” may be down the road, in God’s good time):
We can visibly express our common faith by
– joint programs for formation of families (giving up therefore
‘control’/ownership of them as our members)
– public profession of faith together
– same baptismal certificate
– note interchurch families and learn from them
– attend one another’s Eucharists and *respect the discipline of our churches,* while nonetheless renewing awareness of “spiritual communion” (thus giving up triumphalism of ‘our’ church and learning how to mourn our divisions)
– more non-eucharistic worship (giving up some of the routine to which we are accustomed, our own pattern of offices, etc.)
– pray for the local bishop of the other church and ask God’s blessing on them (giving up forgetfulness, again, and the pretense of being the only game in town)
– pray for the pope/AbC (giving up the congregational/provincial ecclesiology that we inculcate by not praying for the wider Church in a specific way)
We can jointly study our faith by
– reading SS together
– engaging in joint training for ministry (**giving up autonomous/independent seminaries and opting instead for ecumenical seminary training? This is effectively what Berkeley at Yale and Duke, among others, already do, to great effect, in my
experience; both could be improved however by greater formal involvement of other ‘communities’)
– common hermeneutical principles
– shared sponsorship of lectures and worshops
– make sure agreed statements are widely studied (give up more narrowly Episcopalian curricula for ‘our parish and diocese’ etc.), incl. the ones from ARCIC that are awkward right now, e.g. _Church as Communion_ and _Life in Christ: Morals, Communion and the Church_
– shared resources: libraries, staff
We can cooperate in ministry by
– creating a context of trust and friendship in the mutual love of Christ (give up fear of one another, tired stereotypes, etc.)
– invite observes to synodical and collegial gatherings and conferences (again, giving up autonomy)
– consult one another as fully as possible before crucial decisions “in matters of faith, order, and moral life”
– encourage bishops to undertake *joint* study of recent RC and Anglican documents
– and a range of other activities at the episcopal level can be envisaged, e.g.: Episcopalians join RCs on their ad limina visits to Rome; consult when clergy move from one communion to the other; workshops, joint formation; co-operation in education; attending ordinations
– encourage religious orders with ecumenical vocation;
– train lay ministers together (catechists, lectors, teachers, evangelists)
– joint music and youth ministries
And of course shared witness in the world
– MDGs
– “ongoing conversion” and Christian processes of conflict resolution
– joint Anglican-RC church schools!
– creative efforts with other Christian communities via usual ecumenical fora
– open to new groups, movements, associations
So not really mostly academic stuff at all.
Rob,
The issue of reunification can’t be approached (at least on the RC side) from the POV of the clergy on the street. The RCC remains an institution with a top down management order. If you keep your ear to the ground among those either in the various Roman Dicasteries / Curia or with good connections in them (I occasionally correspond with a few who have connections) you will get some ideas about where things are going. In the case of the AC they are going nowhere quickly.
Even if you restrict yourself to the mainstream media it is almost impossible to draw any sense of real optimism from the RC side. +John Paul II suspended the ongoing talks for a while over the issue of W/O. It is generally known that the former prefect of the CDF (ex Holy Office) repeatedly expressed great skepticism to his then boss about the enterprise. He felt is was better to continue the discussions with a different mission statement to the effect of promoting better understanding and mutual tolerance rather than the increasingly problematic idea of corporate reunification. I have no reason to believe that his opinions have significantly changed since his move to the upstairs office.
Further evidence comes form the ongoing (albeit very hush hush) discussions between the Traditional Anglican Communion and Rome. The TAC is attempting to get recognition as a uniate Anglo Catholic Church. Such discussions would not even be going on if Rome had any real hope of corporate reunion with the AC since the creation of a uniate Anglican Church would be a considerable barrier to reunion with the AC. For reference just take a look at the trouble between Orthodoxy and the Romans over the Eastern uniates. Rome generally acknowledges that to have been a mistake which is one of several reasons why they are moving very cautiously with the TAC. They know that if/when they let them in it’s going to be a very public slamming of the door in the face of the AC. One reason B-16 is open to the idea is that he does not see the AC as being a western equivalent to Orthodoxy and therefore he does not anticipate the long term problems that uniatism created with the Eastern Churches. It’s also worth noting that Ratzinger supported Anglican uniatism back in the early 80’s in response to W/O. +John Paul II was not prepared to give up on the AC though.
#8, Brad Page–dude, what an uplifting message.
I do share your frustration with the spirit and letter of texts like the one you quote from the HoB in 1987. That also is a bummer.
But the mistake you make is assimilating ARCIC to TEC in its latest ‘moods’ at the official level (and even here you cherry-pick to display the most depressing picture possible), rather than the reverse. As Oliver O’Donovan (among others) has argued, we need to interpret ARCIC’s vision as a call to interdependent life without which all claims to Anglican ecclesiality fail; hence ARCIC is a call to catholic ecclesiality, and the Windsor Report bears a striking resemblance to the former’s conclusions. Many untheological types in TEC thought WR was cooked up by “conservatives” to answer the Gene Robinson crisis, but it was actually in the ecumenical hopper long before.
Of course, if you are not Anglican, or are outside the formal Communion, then what I am saying will likely not move your heart and mind. But what is at stake in New Orleans this week is precisely this larger vision of “communion.” ARCIC, and now IARCCUM, are surfing on the crest of this same agenda, and, for “communion” types like myself, they are incredibly handy, and providential, teaching tools, without which the hope of any Anglican contribution to larger ecumenical reconciliation seems… to disappear entirely.
Christopher Wells,
[blockquote] We can visibly express our common faith by [/blockquote]
I am warmed by your obvious and ernest wish for the union of all Christains. But I am constrained by reality. What common faith are you referring to? I was not aware that Anglicanism has a faith you all agree on amongst yourselves much less with anyone else. Kindly name a single article of faith binding on all Anglicans. Not a whole list. Just one will do. A single article of faith that you are required to accept to be an Anglican and take communion.
#9, JM–
I recommend you read ARCIC’s Gift of Authority, which, in a Vatican II mode, parses infallibility in terms of the Church indefectability.
We should also note, however, the lack of new infallible statements from popes since Vatican II. Many have suggested this is because such statements would be deal breakers for the Orthodox, who are indeed Rome’s #1 priority. But others could potentially gain from Rome yielding a bit on this.
Frequently noted as well in this field in Ratzinger’s allowance in an old essay (c. 1978 I believe) that in the event of reunion with the East, they would not be asked to themselves affirm these later “infallible” statements by the magisterium, but rather only adhere to pre-schism affirmations. Not sure if that may still be tenable. But JPII acknowledged the papacy as a principle stumbling block, and asked all of us to advise him/them how to “reform” the office. So it seems to me that we can all pull in the same direction here. “Semper reformanda!”
#14, ad orientem (orientam?),
We are asked to confess our sins and recite the creed before receiving communion.
Again, we do have a discipline problem; I grant you that. No thoughtful person could look at Anglican messiness–the standard Spong example will do–and not shudder on many counts.
I am a Thomist, however (ergo Augustinian), both of whom took St Paul to be saying in I Corinthians that eucharistic communion can hurt those who do not commune in faith and having confessed their sins. So that’s my belief. We ought to preach fear of the Lord more, because in fact he will “come to be our judge” as it says right there in the creed.
But of course, all the “churches” could do with more such homilies, couldn’t they?
Re: 16
CW,
While I would agree with most of your points, I don’t see any binding article of faith in your response. The Creed is now optional as a matter of fact (if perhaps not yet in theory) in TEC. And while Spong is certainly the poster boy for TEC’s heresy he is not alone. There are a lot of clergy and yes even bishops who omit parts or even the entirety of the creed now. Then there is the declaration cited by by Brad in his #8 in which TEC in an act of breathtaking perversion seems to have pronounced the very concept of “truth” to be heresy.
Sorry but my skepticism remains. Rome is not going to restore communion with an entity that stands for nothing except standing for nothing.
Christopher Wells, I am of course in favor of the ecumenical action list given by you. As an aggrieved mere christian, it would be a dream come true if clergy on both sides of the divide encouraged those actions in their dioceses. The described incident of unified prayer was remarkable.
I must add that the list seems to be targeted at lay-people, and doesn’t address the overarching causes for division. I don’t see any progress on this front.
A number of people have hinted at TEC and its action as the greatest barrier to unity. As much as I am against the actions of the reappraisers, I don’t believe TEC is to blame in this respect. The lack of accord started long before homosexuality and WO were even issues for debate. Remember that the RC Church found the Anglican Communion to be deficient centuries before the onset of modern liberalism. I think that even if we did away with TEC the underlying issues would remain.
Ecumenism is Anglo Catholics hoping that if they just say the mass in a sufficiently traditional way they’ll be accepted by the RCC. Ecumenism is the RCC hoping that a warm embrace of Anglicans will lead to a warm embrace of Mother Church, and all the offending doctrines that go along with it. Not going to happen without unacceptable compromise on either side.
#15 CW: If what you relate is more than a camoflaging or airbrushing of RCC position, then it’s remarkable and highly welcomed.
Again I second JM’s post (#18). His points are sound. Wishful thinking will not overcome concrete barriers. I will also take this opportunity to add yet another reason why Catholic-Anglican reunion is dead. This was so obvious to me I never even thought of posting it.
If Rome restored communion with the AC it would be the end of any hope of reunification with the Orthodox.
Re: 19
JM,
CW’s 15 is correct. But again it needs to be reiterated that Rome does not see the AC as a sort of Western Orthodox Church. +Benedict XVI sees in Orthodoxy a firm adherence to the faith of the first millennium. That is not the case with Anglicanism. I know of very very few Anglicans (and almost no Episcopalians) who would accept the Catholic Faith of the seven councils as practiced in the age of the undivided church. Thus CW’s point while accurate is also moot as it does not apply to the AC.
Ad O. wrote: “If Rome restored communion with the AC it would be the end of any hope of reunification with the Orthodox.”
Ad Orientem, I’m curious as to what you mean by this, I know very little about the subject. What would Orthodoxy find objectionable in an AC/RCC union?
Thanks
Re: 22
JM
Orthodoxy does not permit communion with non-Orthodox. If the AC were accepted by the Roman Church as being once again part what they claim to be “The Church” it would certainly constitute an insurmountable barrier to reunification with Orthodoxy unless the AC renounced a lot of things and accepted the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils. Unlike the Roman Church, Orthodoxy is not generally quite so reserved in our dialogue with other confessions. When VGR was consecrated most (possibly all) Orthodox Churches severed all ecumenical discussions with TEC. That remains in place to this day. The Russian Church similarly terminated ecumenical dialogue with the Lutheran Church of Sweden when they approved gay marriages. One CofS bishop in a public statement expressed dismay that the Russian Church did not even bother to discuss the matter first. Met. +Phillaret responded that the Swedish Church did not consult with the Russian Orthodox Church before agreeing to bless homosexual marriages.
The bottom line though is that Orthodox do not hold communion or common prayer with heterodox Christians. It is prohibited in the canons of the early church. The AC at present does not even remotely resemble the ancient church. Most of what the various theological schools in Anglicanism today subscribe to is considered heresy.
Christopher Wells (#13): Sorry to have been such a downer. I’ve just worked too closely and too long with Episcopal bishops. I do hope that all churches talk to each other and find commonalities that will move toward greater unity in matters of Christian Faith and Order. However, each must speak to each other with honest and authentic voices about what they do and do not believe. The value of “nuance”, which Episcopal bishops have elevated to the level of trickery (if not deception), has been overspent for twenty or thirty years now and has resulted in much of the current disorder (and distrust) within the Episcopal Church.
You may be right that there is reason to hope for a more unified and faithful future for ecumenism beyond the current “mood” (as you put it) of the Episcopal Church. This “mood” however has been with us for awhile and does not seem to be abating anytime soon. Furthermore, the current situation leads me to believe that Anglican unity will be degrading faster than ever in the months ahead, so that in the decades ahead Anglicanism will be spending more of its time and energy trying to find unity and coherence within the remains of its own broken communion.
One need only look and the disarray in earlier posts over the real presence of Christ in the Eucharest to see the disarray in the AC. Indeed the promotion of lay presidency proves the point.
1. Ad orient.: my American prayer book indicates that all will say the creed at every celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and at morning and evening prayer. If there are bishops etc. that permit the skipping of this, that is a scandal. But I have already indicated above that this sort of undiciplined disorder cannot be the future of Anglicanism if it is to have a future, and that the *hope* of the current Windsor Process is to address that.
I do not think “Rome should restore communion” with the entity TEC. As I have already said, if there is hope for TEC, it is in a renewed, catholic and evangelical communion of the sort envisioned by WR and repeatedly welcomed–in principle and in various details–by Roman authorities. It may be a long shot in any number of respects; but I am here, so I work for it in hope, with joy, else this would not be a Christian vocation and I would go somewhere else.
I don’t know who you are–perhaps an ex-Anglican turned Orthodox who is invested in your analysis of things being right? I do not begrudge you your ecclesial home, wherever it may be, nor do I deny your own experiences and encounters with various forms of Episcopalian and Anglican unfaithfulness (how could I?). I am a defender of traditional ecumenism, however–taught by many Episcopalians to be this way, and upheld by them in prayer and mutual action, including in my parish and diocese and in many other networks, all of which are public on the “Covenant” website to which I referred earlier. And I am glad to have met and worked alongside for some years now many in the Catholic and Orthodox and other churches who are still working and praying for the same thing–a common labor that is not in fact based first nor in the middle nor at the end upon calculations as to chances of success. As the ecumenical movement has always held, it is first a matter of spiritual posture: obedience to our crucified Lord, and prayer for conversion after his holy example. This is what John Paul II called all of us to in Ut Unum Sint and many other writings, and we have many analogous Anglican, Orthodox and other authorities that have held out the same. I would invite you to join me in this vocation and pray for the Anglican Communion, and your own communion of churches; and if you cannot pray for Anglicans, then leave us to God rather than the exhausting criticisms of blog wars that seek not to build up but to tear down.
2. Justin: if you read the actual documents produced at the highest level, you will find that “real progress” has been made on most if not all of the outstanding “causes for division” between RCs and Anglicans. What IARCCUM proposes is that we “grow together in unity and mission” (as the title of the new document would have it) by taking steps to receive and act upon this theological progress. As we walk more together, including in our teaching (see the seminary examples above; and also the IARCCUM suggestion that bishops conferences regularly consult with each other, as the English RC and C of E bishops did in 2006!), outstanding issues will be worked out, as the ecumenical movement and human experience suggests.
As for your definition of “ecumenism,” for either Anglicans or RCs, it is woefully out of step with what our churches have been saying since Vatican II, and simply reveals your lack of familiarity with the documents. The RCC again and again (even in the person of pope Benedict, most recently to my knowledge in his remarkable address to Lutherans in Cologne in 2005) denies, for instance, that “return” to mother Church is the goal; rather, “conversion” on all sides is what is called for. Yes, Rome would seek an acceptance of their position on some things (e.g. the universal primacy of the pope). ARCIC has long defended this very thing, however; and I already noted Rome’s own concern to reform this primacy in a way that is somehow at once faithful and reconciling. So either/or soundbites have pretty much no traction with any of this. Again, all I can say is pray for unity and form your mind toward it if you care about it. Many have expended their lives on the cause, some still with us, and been formed in sanctity as a result.
3. Brad Page (24): I don’t disagree with anything in your first paragraph. As to progonsotications of coming Anglican fissiparousness, we shall see. I pray that this is not the case, but it may be. As I have said, much depends on this week. If a visible Communion around Canterbury with a distinct majority of Anglicans from all provinces, “north” and “south,” does not perdure, it will be hard for me and catholic-minded people like me to see how whatever may remain is still the Anglican Communion (and our “ecclesial” hope sin this place will be shattered). If it does perdure, more or less, then we will continue to work toward its strengthening with the AbC and primates as articulated in the Windsor and Covenant processes, as an investment in the healing of the wider body of Christ.
Christopher – May your work bear more fruit. What you said is such a good reason for hope . Thx.
Christopher #11, I much apprecuate your suggestions for RC-Anglican cooperation. Here in the High Country my parish and the local RC parish have had a formal covenant relationship for over thirty years. While there is less activity in the present than in the past, the present pastors of our churches and a local Lutheran pastor have been intentional in seeking to build closer bonds. At my parish we pray every Sunday for St. Elizabeth’s Roman Catholic Church, our covenant parish; and Fr. Joe at St. E’s includes in the Sunday Mass prayers “for our Episcopalian and Lutheran brothers and sisters with whom we have a covenant.” The clergy meet regularly for lunch and fellowship. Some from the other parishes come to St. Luke’s Taize Service. Members regularly attend each other’s book discussioin groups and cooperate in local social service activities. A joint Blessing of the Animals is held on St. Francis’ feast day. The Lutherans and the Episcopalians offer a Summer Bible School together. There is much more we could do, and I pray that these contacts will grow. There is so much theologically, sacramentally and liturgically we do have in common, and while respecting the differences, we can certainly love, pray, and serve the Lord together.
Praise God, Bob; what a wonderful witness. May such testimonies increase. And thank-you, Rob; yours as well.
I am glad at cooperation. But.
There is still the fact that we (Rome) formally found Anglican orders to be invalid.
There is the fact that we (again, Rome) can no more recognize the ordination of women than we could recognize a baptism performed with champagne or a Eucharist performed with angel food cake: the matter is invalid for the sacraments in question. The Orthodox are not any more yielding on this than we are.
There is the fact that the Anglican Communion has priests and bishops who publicly deny elements of the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds and cannot be disciplined for it, apparently. One hundred fifty years ago Spong would have been deposed. Two hundred fifty years ago he’d have been excommunicated. Four hundred years ago he’d have been burned. Which I don’t insist on.
Most important in my view, when you say Real Presence and we say Real Presence, we have not established that we mean the same thing.
All of which is to say that we are not One as Jesus and the Father are one, and as things stand those in communion with Rome and those in communion with Canterbury do not seem to be getting closer.
No. 30 – Ed – Can you tell us what each church body means by “Real Presence”? Thx.
Rob,
The term “real presence” refers to the change in the matter of the bread and wine during the divine liturgy (Mass). Orthodox (and Roman Catholics) believe that the consecrated communion is the actual physical body and blood of Jesus Christ, not just a symbolic representation thereof. Nor do we accept the Lutheran concept of the infusion of the divinity of Christ into the consecrated elements whilst maintaining the form of bread and wine. The Latin Church employs the term transubstantiation for the process.
No. 32 – AO – Thanks for coming in. I was, however asking Ed to compare the RC and Anglican versions, or theologies, of the Real Presence. It’s pretty well agreed all the way around that Christ’s true Body and Blood are present, but as transubstantiation itself is explained by St. Thos. Aq., and other medieval commentators, that presence, though “substantial” occurs in a non-natural, sacramental way. It’s much closer to the Orthodox and Anglican way of explaining the Real Presence than people give it credit for. Not only are His Body and Blood present in a non-natural way, but that presence is not localized in the species themselves – a hard concept to get one’s arms around, but that is how it goes, nevertheless. And certainly most Anglican practice treats it as much more than a mere symbol. Check the catechism and the liturgy itself. There have been Zwinglian influences in the Church, however, with some people asserting now and then the “Real Absence” The Lutheran theory is interesting. While it does assert the Real Presence, that presence depends on the recitation of the words of institution, and remains with the sacrament only until its administration. That is why Lutherans, with rare exception, do not reserve the sacrament, as do RCs, Orthodox, and Anglicans.