Faced with these difficulties, we must first recall that the unity of the Church flows from the perfect oneness of the Trinitarian God. In John’s Gospel, we are told that Jesus prayed to his Father that his disciples might be one, “just as you are in me and I am in you” (Jn 17:21). This passage reflects the unwavering conviction of the early Christian community that its unity was both caused by, and is reflective of, the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This, in turn, suggests that the internal cohesion of believers was based on the sound integrity of their doctrinal confession (cf. 1 Tim 1:3-11). Throughout the New Testament, we find that the Apostles were repeatedly called to give an account for their faith to both Gentiles (cf. Acts 17:16-34) and Jews (cf. Acts 4:5-22; 5:27-42). The core of their argument was always the historical fact of Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the tomb (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30). The ultimate effectiveness of their preaching did not depend on “lofty words” or “human wisdom” (1 Cor 2:13), but rather on the work of the Spirit (Eph 3:5) who confirmed the authoritative witness of the Apostles (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11). The nucleus of Paul’s preaching and that of the early Church was none other than Jesus Christ, and “him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). But this proclamation had to be guaranteed by the purity of normative doctrine expressed in creedal formulae – symbola – which articulated the essence of the Christian faith and constituted the foundation for the unity of the baptized (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-5; Gal 1:6-9; Unitatis Redintegratio, 2).
Read it all (my emphasis).
Too often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions†that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local optionsâ€. Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia – communion with the Church in every age – is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23).
As Dan Martins noted over on Covenant, one feels he might be talking to US! (Even though that is hopelessly self-centered…)
It certainly sounds to me like he is speaking directly to TEC. Somehow I’m not surprised that the Presiding Bishop had a scheduling conflict that prevented her attending this event …
The Orthodox leaders were first to be presented to the Holy Father, since they have primacy and are regarded as real churches. I wondered whether the “also ran” Protestants were lined up in alphabetical order or in approval ranking. Bp. Sisk, in the forefront of the assault on diachronic koinonia, was stone last.
As I read the online Catholic News Service report, the CNS confirms that the references were to the Episcopal Church:
“While the pope did not offer specific examples, he has in the past questioned Christian communities that have decided to ordain women to the priesthood and episcopacy or to bless homosexual unions and ordain openly gay men and women.
“The pope’s concerns obviously extend to the Anglican Communion and its troubled relations with the U.S. Episcopal Church and some dioceses in Canada.”
I’m sure that the Pope is also concerned with the defiant Protestantism still present in the Anglican Communion and other ecclesiastical bodies.
“the purity of normative doctrine expressed in creedal formulae”
This is music to my ears, I must say, after all the questionable (to put it charitably) theology we are subjected to by too may TEC leaders.
My take, for what it is worth. Benedict XVI has tended to recognize Anglicanism as being distinctive amongst what he would consider protestant sects, and takes anglo-catholicism more seriously than his predecessor. I think the comment I referred to in post 1 was probably a general observation of protestant tendencies… with “special intention” for us!
Randall
“Hopelessly self-centered” to think that he may have been addressing American Episcopalians and Anglicans generally? Certainly his comments have wider applicability (cf. precisely the same sort of hermeneutical nonsense going on in Protestant churches from the Evangelical Lutherans to the United Methodists to the Presbyterians).
But let’s not forget that Benedict – then as Cardinal Ratzinger, in the name of +John Paul II – did comment directly to a group of Anglicans standing against unfaithful hermeneutics gathered in Dallas in October 2003.
I do not doubt that, as least in some small way, our struggle is on the papal radar screen.
NO. 7 – I hope you are right. I have heard that, while still Cardinal, Ratzinger was very active behind the scenes in pushing hard for the ARCIC agreed-upon statement concerning the BVM in the life of the Church.