Rowan Williams’ paper read by Fr. Goodall was extremely clear and lucid. It began with greetings to the society and a commendation of the theme of the conference, the meaning of primacy. “The subject matter could hardly be more timely.” The ABC repeatedly made the point that every church is a daughter church except the church in Jerusalem. Each church receives the Gospel from elsewhere and this dependence on that which is received is vital because it reminds each local church that it is not self-sufficient.
There followed a recommendation of the communion ecclesiology of John Zizioulas and others which emphasizes the church as local Eucharistic fellowship gathered around a bishop and which critiques institutional and bureaucratic understandings of church authority. “The church is not an organization controlled from a single point.” However, the ABC went on to say in his paper that “the pendulum has swung too far.” Communio ecclesiology is sometimes taken in a way that encourages an understanding of the church which misses the necessary interdependence of local churches and their existence in an economy of giving and receiving the Gospel. “One bishop is no bishop.” I didn’t get the exact words in my notes but the ABC said in effect that one local church is not the church, again stressing the interdependence of churches.
The paper continued with a reflection on the role of the bishop and of primacy. “The bishop sustains and nourishes his churches’ dependence on the larger church especially as the celebrant of the catholic oblation.” “Identification of primacy apart from the fellowship of all the bishops is questionable.” Primacy should be exercised in terms of sharing the gift of the Gospel and the Spirit. The exercise of the primatial office in the promulgation of a Gospel that cannot be shared outside of the context of one local church and culture is a contradiction of the office of episcopacy and primacy and this is a problem on both the left and the right in Anglicanism.
As I noted in a comment on Dr Harding’s weblog, the Orthodox internet radio station Ancient Faith Radio has an MP3 audio file of Abp Williams’s paper (as read by Canon Goodall) available for download [url=http://ancientfaith.com/specials/svs_jan2008]here[/url] (along with all of the other excellent lectures given at the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius conference).
So far as I know there are no transcripts of the talks available, but all of them are available as MP3s.
For about a year I have been toying with the idea that the Anglican Communion needs to (re?)envision itself in Orthodox terms. Notice I do not say “become Eastern Orthodox”. Just… borrow heavily from the Orthodox playbook. How can one have orthodoxy (small o) in Anglicanism (or perhaps how can one have order and harmony) without resorting to authoritarian structures? agreement without coercion?
I shared that idea with some Anglican clergy buds over a particularly good lunch about a year ago and their response was something along the lines of “Yes! Exactly!” (Because they were too nice to say “well duh”? Kidding.)
Dear Rick,
What is wrong with Eastern Orthodoxy? In fact, the Antiochian Jurisdiction has a Western Rite Vicariate. Statmann
I did not say anything was wrong with it.
The PB’s mother was an Orthodox member of the Fellowship of Ss. Alban & Sergius. The Orthodox usually have a good schedule of speakers, the Anglicans just have to keep scrambling.
There was a lot about this conference which has been controversial within Orthodox circles, starting with the title of it. That alone seems to imply an agreement with the long condemned branch theory. While I agree with some of the self criticisms of the Anglican short comings in primacy I would note that they are merely symptomatic of larger and more serious problems.
How and from where you get your bishops is a good starting point. In Orthodoxy bishops are monastics. They are elected by the Holy Synod and not by the laity thus severely limiting the likely influence of secular trends and “the spirit of the age” on such an important matter. The fact that our hierarchs are monastics also lends itself to a constancy in faith.
With respect to primacy again we see significant differences. The degree of authority which rests in the primates of the various autocephalous Orthodox Churches varies somewhat amongst the jurisdictions. But it is a real primacy if not rising to the level of the papacy. Also Orthodox ecclesiology has lent itself well to self policing on doctrinal matters. Our churches have demonstrated a willingness to break communion at the drop of a hat and sometimes, sadly, for reasons which most of us tend to think inadequate or even petty. There is admittedly a double edged sword here.
Still in matters of doctrine and fidelity to The Faith, Orthodox ecclesiology has repeatedly demonstrated that it keeps a short leash on those who want to stray off the reservation. A case in point is worth looking at. Recently the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan Nicolae of Banat took Holy Communion at a service of the uniate Romanian Catholic Church (Eastern Rite). This has sent shock waves through the Orthodox world. There has been a fairly massive outcry over this violation of the canonical prohibition against communication in sacris with non-Orthodox Christians. The Russian Orthodox Church has submitted a formal request to the Holy Synod of the Romanian Church asking for an explanation and there is a move under way among some Romanian bishops to have the Metropolitan deposed and excommunicated.
How often does this sort of thing (intercommunion with non-believers) go on in TEC/ Anglicanism? Does anyone even bother to take notice? Has any priest or bishop in TEC been deposed for heresy in the last century? To be sure Orthodox ecclesiology has its problems. One need only look at the often silly quarrels between some of the churches (like the incessant sniping between Constantinople and Moscow) to figure that out. But in matters where the Faith is involved it has worked remarkably well. Perhaps the single greatest testament is that there has not been a serious and protracted schism in Orthodoxy over matters of faith or doctrine (with the possible exception of the Russian Old Believers which I generally see as based more on liturgical issues) since the departure of Rome.
ICXC NIKA
John
Re #5
Nwlayman,
You raised inadvertently something of a sore point with us Orthodox. The PB’s mother was indeed Orthodox. In fact near the end of her life she was taking steps to become a monastic. But when she died her daughter moved swiftly to take custody of her body and would not permit an Orthodox funeral, which is regarded as a sacrament of The Church. This shocking disrespect has left a very bad taste in the mouths of many on this side of the Bosporos.
ICXC NIKA
John
Hey, John, I knew her! Her last medical mishap was as she was about to fly to England in 1985 for a Ss. Alban & Sergius conference, in fact.
My Mother was a convert to the Catholic Church. When she died, I was a member of TEC and my Sister was a Missouri Synod Lutheran. Neither of us would have had the cruel arrogance to have denied our Mother (of blesed memory) a funeral in the Catholic Church. Such arrogance as exhibited by PB Schori was a key factor in my leaving TEC. Statmann
NW,
I heard as much from Dr. Tighe who is a veritable font of information on all things Anglican and Catholic. By all accounts she was a remarkable woman. May her memory be eternal.
Statmann,
I think your actions speak highly of your character and that of your sister. The funeral is not about those left behind. It is about the departed. The PB’s actions were less a disrespect of my church than they were of her own mother. Someone should really acquaint her with the ten commandments and put the one about honoring thy mother and father in bold font.
ICXC NIKA
John
[blockquote]How often does this sort of thing (intercommunion with non-believers) go on in TEC/ Anglicanism? [/blockquote]
Ouch. I hope you didn’t (and am pretty sure you didn’t) mean that Romanian Catholics are non-believers. Man, talk about knocking ecumenism back a couple of centuries! 😉
Chris,
Catholics are most definitely believers. In fact they have beliefs about their own church which closely parallel what we Orthodox believe about ours. Which raises some interesting questions. Why would Catholics permit non-Catholics to commune at their altar? At one time they adhered to the same canons which we Orthodox still regard as pretty much carved in stone.
It was not my intention to say that the uniates are non-believers. It was my intention to say that they are “non-Orthodox Christians.” Communion is not a feel good sacrament. It is the Body and Blood of Christ and its reception is at least in part, a declaration of unity of faith. That unity of faith does not presently exist between Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church. I pray that one day this will change. But I must confess that I am skeptical. The gulf is much wider than many realize.
With respect to the see of Canterbury, I confess that I entertain no hope whatsoever. Which brings me back the title of this conference. It sounds as if someone was trying to promote Anglicans as being a sister church to the Orthodox. That is a nonstarter on our side of the debate. There are no sister churches. One is either Orthodox or one is not. This does not require one to be Byzantine in rite. But it does require Orthodoxy in faith.
ICXC
John
John
John,
I think you are reading too much into the title of the conference. Have you listened to the lectures? The lectures I have listened to so far have no suggestion of “sister Churches” (admittedly I haven’t listened yet to any of the non-Orthodox participants). The point of the conference theme is, I think, to explore the concept of regional and universal primacy, and nothing I have heard in the lectures I have listened to so far ought to give rise to any controversy from an Orthodox perspective (in my opinion).
The good archbishop is very wrong if he holds the view that “the consent to the ordination of Gene Robinson and subsequently, as culpably communion breaking and a contradiction of the proper role of bishops in the churchâ€. For sure it was the invention of women priests ( started by the Americans and embraced by archbishop Rowan) that was the first “crack in the communionâ€. The two heresies go together and are both children of a post-modern theology/anthropology.
Anglicans should carefully listen to the paper on Canterbury’s “primacy” that was read to the conference on behalf of its author, J. Robert Wright, who could not be present. It ends with a “visionary proposal” that, in order to foster ecumenical rapprochement, Canterbury should renounce whatever claims to anything other than a purely symbolic “primacy” within the Anglican Communion as a whole that it might make.
In the ensuing public discussion, and even more in subsequent private conversations, many of us wondered if this proposal was “for real” — and we certainly thought (a) that the present AbC has certainly in practice abnegated any practical primatial authority that he might be able to exercise in the current crisis of the Anglican Communion, and (b) that if any such “renunciation” should be made, the consequence in the present circumstances would be not to foster by one whit any “ecumenical rapprochement” with Rome and/or the Orthodox, but to hand both the present dominance of the Anglican Communion and the determination of its future direction (on the principle of “he who pays the piper calls the tune”) to the revisionist oligarchy of ECUSA and 815, and to its “running dogs” (in that lovely Maoist phrase) throughout the rest of the Anglican Communion.
That was the voice of the serpent, that ever since the Garden of Eden has cooed “did God really say …?” whereas the voice of the Shepherd could be heard in those of Bishop Ackerman and Fr. Tanghe — voices who were characterized as “from the extremist fringe” of the Episcopal Church in, as I gather, some of the comments made by some Anglicans who were present at the conference.
“Abnegated”
Past tense of “Abnegate”
1. To give up (rights or a claim, for example); renounce.
2. To deny (something) to oneself:
I am filing this one for future use… 🙂
ICXC
John
John,
Thanks for clarifying. I didn’t think you meant it in that vein. It’s interesting that Roman canon law permits Orthodox believers to receive communion under certain circumstances, despite the ecclesial and theological differences. I’m sure we could posit myriad reasons why Rome decided that way. Catholic reaction to the incidenct in question run the gamut from “yay! one more step towards unity!” to “how dare that schismatic heretic desecrate Our Lord!” (a reaction I find particularly silly considering Rome recognizes the Orthodox Eucharist as perfectly valid).
My reaction is somewhat more muted. It was an unwise choice and probably shouldn’t have happened. I’m not going to get all 1054 about it, though. FWIW, I’ve been enjoying the East/West discussions on Sacramentum Vitae and Eirenikon lately. If you haven’t popped in to at least skim through, you may want to!
It should also be pointed out that Orthodox canons don’t permit Orthodox to commune with Roman Catholics *ever*. It’s an illustration of the fact that Rome considers itself able to make rules for others’ laity. If my child wants to stay overnight at a friend’s house, it requires *both* fathers or mothers to say it’s OK. Rome doesn’t think there *are* other fathers. What is hospitality to them (and I’m sure it’s sincere) is a statement of dominance that sets relations yet further apart. Meanwhile, Anglicans receive unbaptized to communion (with what?) and ordain unbaptized to every known clerical order. A different planet.
Chris,
Thank you for your kind note. I have been monitoring both the sites you mention and am something of a fan of both. I posted a comment early in the discussion over at SV on Dr. Licciones article about the conversion of Ben of the Undercroft to Orthodoxy. Beyond that I have stayed out of the discussions though. There are some personalities there who tend to get a bit too snarky when making points in what should be a civil discussion.
ICXC
John
nwlayman,
You made some excellent points. It is well worth repeating (though to anyone who follows East West debates it should be no surprise) that Orthodox canons absolutely forbid communication in sacris with non-Orthodox Christians. Your point about the one sided Eucharistic hospitality and the way it is generally viewed by us is also a good one. It has actually created some problems with people being offered communion in public situations and either having to very publicly decline it (possibly causing embarrassment or hurt feelings) or accept it and risk suspension from the Holy Mysteries in the Orthodox Church.
TEC is of course in its own world as you noted. Any further comment on that subject would simply be redundant.
ICXC
John
[blockquote]It’s an illustration of the fact that Rome considers itself able to make rules for others’ laity.[/blockquote]
Wow, that’s a lot of venom imputed to the motives of “Rome”.
Doesn’t the Church have the authority to tell its own clergy who can and cannot receive communion from them?
How about this? Rome sees no canonical impediment FROM HER POINT OF VIEW to Orthodox receiving communion from her clergy if there is a necessity (I do believe the canons specify that it ought to occur only in emergency type situations, though someone with more knowledge can clarify or correct my vague recollection). I’m not sure how that equates to big bad Rome laying down the law for the Orthodox laity.
Haven’t yet (unfortunately) listened to the other recordings, but I transcribed the last bit of the Archbishop’s remarks which you can find here. This is interesting stuff, and I fully intend to follow Dr Tighe’s suggestion to listen to the paper on Canterbury (among others).