Listen to the whole RealAudio report (An MP3 is also available if you follow the link provided on this page).
Listen to the whole RealAudio report (An MP3 is also available if you follow the link provided on this page).
This is a very interesting article:
Catholic Herald
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000273.shtml
Wow.
From the article linked by ODC…
[blockquote]Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: “We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.
“We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis.”[/blockquote]
To repeat…wow.
Sounds like a signal is being shot across the bow…choose this day whom you will serve or forget about ARCIC or its successors, dialogue, Quadrilaterals, and being considered as part of the one, holy catholic and apostolic church.
Coming on the rumors that the Pope will rehabilitate Luther this summer and this is a very serious statement. I guess 20 minutes was all that was needed to communicate this message to +Rowan? That is if it was mentioned at all.
After all, if the Pope can be thought to be planning Luther’s get out of jail card, what’s to say that he would not consider the same for Anglican orders?
I hope this doesn’t stray too far from the topic. It’s worth noting that Rome’s “rehabilitation†of Luther cannot be a wholesale approval of Luther’s theology. Luther was right on a number of issues (not the least of which was that the Catholic Church was in desperate need of reform.) But Luther developed a theology of grace that was and is radically different from the Catholic theology of grace. Luther’s notion was that humanity is so ruined by sin that the most we can hope for is that grace be imputed to us. Catholicism teaches that grace is imparted.
Whether Lutherans themselves are, in our own time, in agreement with Luther’s theology of grace is a different question. But as for a “rehabilitation†of Luther himself, the term calls for a bit of nuancing.
Thanks ODC for the link. Very interesting article.
Re: “Sounds like a signal is being shot across the bow…choose this day whom you will serve or forget about ARCIC or its successors, dialogue, Quadrilaterals, and being considered as part of the one, holy catholic and apostolic church,” it seems to me that it has been the Anglicans who have self-claimed to be the “third branch.” I am unaware of any document–either Roman or Orthodox–that acknowledges any legitimacy to such a claim. Can it be that the time has come to cut through the bull (no pun intended)?
#6,
So there’s a document somewhere that states the Romans have accepted the East as equals? Cutting through the bull runs in a lot of different directions.
#7, I think the language used to describe the Eastern Orthodox is “true particular Churches”, which is not used to describe any of the Protestant denominations including the Anglican Communion or any splinter group thereof.
MikeS, check out Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism, “Unitatis Redintegratio.” You’ll have to copy this and paste it (I do not remember how to make it a direct hyperlink):
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
Hmm. I just clicked the link, and it worked!
Thanks for the link to the Decree on Ecumenism from Vatican II. I had not read this since seminary when I studied Karl Rahner for a quarter.
Just a couple of issues and then I’ll let it drop:
The Council was concerned not to “impose a burden beyond what is essential” for those in the East. Yet the determination of what is essential is still determined by Rome.
Note the beginning of this section declaring in paragraph 14 that
[blockquote]For many centuries the Church of the East and that of the West each followed their separate ways though linked in a brotherly union of faith and sacramental life; the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline.[/blockquote]
My reaction is did the Roman Church act as guide as they claim? Do we remember the [i]filioque[/i] clause? As I recall this has been an issue every time East and West sought to reconcile and reunify. Neither side is budging. But clearly Rome is not acting as “guide” in this matter of controversy for the East.
Second, note that in the very next sentence the Council refers to the Churches of the East as “particular or local churches.” The clear implication is that they are limited in scope, while Rome is not. This is made more telling with the statement at the end of paragraph 17:
[blockquote]We thank God that many Eastern children of the Catholic Church, who preserve this heritage, and wish to express it more faithfully and completely in their lives, are already living in full communion with their brethren who follow the tradition of the West.[/blockquote]
How is that heritage faithfully and more fully lived out? By living in full communion with Rome which, as seems to be the case above, requires Roman primacy and guidance.
Finally, concerning the Western divisions, I note that the Council granted that those who have been baptized in accordance with the Lord’s institution and command have been “truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life.” This is good news.
What is not good news is that this incorporation and new birth is not sufficient for the Church to find unity among its far-flung members. My concern is that this makes the new life contingent on my will or efforts, not according to the grace of God we each receive. It appears to make the new birth spoken of in Col 2:12 and Romans 6:4 (as quoted in the decree) incomplete.
These are the salient points that have always jumped out at me from this decree.
At the same time I do not wish to minimize the issues within the Anglican or wider Protestant world. They are serious concerns. Much that is good and right has been jettisoned when it should have been kept, so today we see that Protestantism (in its historical churches, at least) has wandered needlessly into the fruitless desert of Enlightenment modernity or flat out gnosticism.
[blockquote]Do we remember the filioque clause? As I recall this has been an issue every time East and West sought to reconcile and reunify. Neither side is budging. [/blockquote]
IIRC, Eastern Catholics do not say the filioque when they recite the creed. They just had to accept the filique as non-heretical. Most Orthodox theologians don’t appear ready to concede that due to some issues with the energy/essence distinction (IIRC), which I’ll probably never be smart enough to understand.
#12 Chris Molter,
Absolutely correct. The Eastern Churches will not be able to reunify with Rome and enter full communion with her until they either change their theology concerning the filioque clause to accept Roman standards or Rome drops the clause. Either way, from their viewpoint, Rome, itself, is in the way of full communion.
Just to be clear. I’m not Eastern. I happen to think the filioque clause in the Creed should be there and is one of things that Rome has good reason to believe. But it stands as a prominent example (along with language of guidance, etc) of what Rome requires as a necessary burden for full communion.
Such language requires bending on the part of Eastern Churches who have held their theology on this issue longer than has Rome. That they must bend is a declaration of sorts of Rome’s primacy.
Of course this is a long way from the original post, so I’m out after this unless I’m asked a specific question. I don’t want to wake up the elves.