In the Vatican’s dealings with the Anglicans, the detail of how Bishops, priest and congregations should be received into unity with the Catholic Church was properly a matter for the Catholic Church alone. The establishment of a secretariate to reflect on such questions as the criteria for deciding whether people approved for ministry in one church should be accepted into Catholic ministry, and how the new group should relate institutionally to other groups within the Catholic Church, was an internal Catholic decision.
But respect would seem to demand that public announcement of special provisions for Anglican congregations and clergy were preceded by consultation and proper communication. It is clear from Archbishop Rowan Williams’ response that this was not done satisfactorily. That the failure represented an older view of Catholic exceptionalism is suggested by the fact that the documents grounding the Vatican initiative maximised Catholic uniqueness.
Respect also normally demands reciprocity. This is germane in deciding whether congregations and other groups that move from one church to another should retain the use and ownership of their churches and other property. Under this principle, Catholic groups which decided to associate with the Anglican church would have the same rights to property as Anglican groups who wished to become Catholic.
[blockquote] The Catholic and Orthodox churches, for example, see their church as being exceptional and see other churches as lacking important qualities. In earlier Catholic theology, this was spelled out in terms of the Catholic Church being the true church and other churches as non-churches. This radical asymmetry made any relations, let alone respectful ones, very difficult.
In more recent theology, the Catholic Church has seen itself as embodying in flawed ways the full reality of Church. Other churches share in that reality to greater and lesser degrees. This gradated view of churches explains why the Catholic Church might be eager to enter into special relations with Anglican groups which share similar liturgical practice and doctrinal and moral views with the Catholic Church.[/blockquote]
Ummm No. Rome has never retreated from its claims to “exceptionalism.” Point in fact those claims have been reiterated by the former Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before he moved onto a different position. The whole who gets what buildings and so on issue is neither here nor there and has absolutely zero relevance to the question of the RCC’s self understanding of its nature.
All in all this article is deeply flawed in its grasp of Roman Catholic ecclessiology and the theology behind it.
I agree with #1. Furthermore, it is absolutely clear that the ownership of all Catholic parochial property in the USA is vested in the diocese and its bishop, so people can leave but that can’t take “their” church with them. If the Episcopal Church had been equally clear about the ownership of its property, instead of fudging the question, at least until the adoption of the “Dennis Canon” in 1979, the same wopuld be true of the Episcopal Church.
Exactly #1. Dominus Iesus was part of my impetus to swim the Tiber.
“Rome has never retreated from its claims to “exceptionalism.—
Sad. The article gave some hope ‘The Church’ had finally come to grips with reality.
#3, The Church waits, ever patiently, for you to come to grips with reality.
Ad Orientem, if you are taking issue with what you quoted, I think it is actually stated quite well there. While the RCC has not backed off its own claim of being exceptional, it has backed off a bit in saying that it is the ONLY true “Church”. Prior to Vatican II, it was the only “Church”. Now it shares that recognition to the Orthodox, who is also considered a “Church” with valid orders and sacraments. Others are “ecclesial communities”, though in most writings Anglicans are singled out as traditionally having a special status apart from other protestant churches. So, while the rest of the article may be deeply flawed, what you quote is actually pretty good.
Advocate,
Rome has always considered the Orthodox to be true churches, just not part of The Church (as defined by Rome). Hence if you look at any pre-Vatican II authoritative sources you will find that they refer to us as “schismatics.” Their recognition of Orthodox sacraments has also been fairly consistent. Again no real change in position that I am able to discern. Just expanded on a bit.
In fairness to Rome though we hold a very similar self understanding and our attitude towards the RCC is not as charitable.
#5 – I have understood it to be true that Anglicans are singled out as having a special status apart from other protestant churches. However, I have not understood why. Can you help me on this point?
1. Ad Orientem.
Although you were once a Catholic, I am not sure you are in a position to speak authoritatively on Catholic ecclesiology. You are painting in too broad of strokes in ways that confuse rather than illumine the Catholic position.
I am quite the orthodox Catholic and do reject, as the Church does, any false notions of an easy ecumenism. Still, it has to be understood that the Catholic position on other Christian bodies did in fact become more nuanced at Vat. II.
As is unusually the case with nuance, the Catholic position on other Christians can be misunderstood in two extremes. The first error is to overstate the shift that occurred resulting in a false flattening of the real differences that separate us. This is the liberal position. The second error is to understate the shift that occurred resulting in an exaggeration of the differences among Christian bodies.
This is the traditionalist position.
So, it is important to look closely at what the Council did and did not do in order to understand the kind of ecumenism that has resulted. First, the Council recognized for the first time that the means of salvation are present outside the Catholic Church and not only in the Orthodox Church, but among all the Churches that practice valid baptism. This is no small admission. It is a recognition that most who claim to be Christians really do have some of the means and fruits of grace (Mormons, JW’s and some others being notable exceptions). Second, the Council preserved the distinction between Churches of apostolic succession and those Christian bodies which do not have such, calling the first Churches and the second “ecclesial communities.” Note that the term “ecclesial” is the adjectival form of “church.” Ecclesial in this sense means something like “churchish” or “church-like.”
My point is that the term “exceptionalism” is not a Catholic theological term and is far too broad. In one sense the CC is exceptionalistic, and in another very important sense it is not at all exceptionalistic.
The primary text in question is in [i]Lumen Gentium[/i], paragraph 8:
[blockquote]”This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.[/blockquote]
This is why Catholics properly call the process of entering the Church from other churches “coming into full communion.” We already recognize all baptised Christians as being in a partial communion.
The early ecumenical dialogues after the Council were theological explorations of what we share in common, namely the truths and elements of Christs eternal Church which are found outside the Catholic Church. Those early dialogues in other words covered the easy ground among the churches and unfortunately gave the false impression that unity would be easy and soon. It was inevitable that those elements upon which Christians agree would run out and that the ecumenical movement would lose some of its steam.
It is common to say these days that WO and now GO are the reasons Anglicans and Catholics will not be coming together. I believe that the impression that we were terribly close to unifying was because the dialogues were simply still covering the easy ground. They never got to the 39 Articles directly, for instance, or the radically Protestant nature of the evangelical wing of the AC.
Even so, Anglicans and Catholics ARE close in critically important ways even though there remain some timeless differences which are not easily overcome. WO and GO are not the only differences, maybe they are not even the most import (at least among some Anglicans, especially those of the evangelical wing), maybe.
#8 Thank you – very ilumenating.
Fr. J
I will defer to your more nuanced understanding of changes in Roman Catholic doctrine regarding those outside the church.
#10 “those outside the church”??? There you go again AD