Bishop Ackerman also has a quote on unity:
“I believe that Anglicanism has made a great contribution to the Christian Faith and from my perspective that contribution did not begin in the 16th Century but rather has been a contribution that even precedes St. Augustine’s arrival in England. I subscribe to the concept of Christian Unity as articulated by our Lord and I fervently pray for the reunion of the church of the East and of the West. I cannot speak about reunion with Rome without considering the necessity of reunion with Constantinople. My great and abiding affection for both Rome and Constantinople will continue.”
A good interview: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8641
I could swear (oops nevermind ELves) I just read that Pope Benedict XVI said something to the effect that “unity without truth is no unity”, or something to that effect.
Is my memory betraying me, or didn’t Cardinal Kasper see the message?
So that pretty much takes care of the Cardinal’s “wishes”..
#1: I agree, it is horrifying. It disgusts me. I both shook Robinson’s hand and stood beside him to take communion at a conference early this spring. The only thing that allowed me to do so was remembering that our Lord broke bread with his betrayer and with the one who denied him. Christ, who knew the absolute truth, stayed with those who were in obvious error unto death on a Cross; and in so doing He remained obedient to God’s will enabling us to be forgiven and redeemed. I believe we were asked to take up our own crosses, to feed Christ’s sheep (even if they disgust us and if we find them abhorrent to the faith), to follow him (Jn 21:15-19). I don’t think the pope wishes us ill; rather I think he wishes us to remain faithful to our calling even if it requires we give up our lives, or in this case, our righteous belief in our own discovery of the truth.
#2 You’re right, all of us are schismatics. What is the ‘true church’ of which you speak?
#2, no, you’re not schismatics. That particular rule applies only to Catholics who commit such an act. Our Anglican ancestors were guilty of schism. Current Anglicans are not personally guilty of such.
#6 We are all in fact schismatics: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, all the other thousands of Christian denominations. Current Anglicans are guilty of such; schism is a sin which has been perpetuated to the present and of which we are all guilty. To think otherwise is to fail to grasp the seriousness of the sin of being divided in which we are living; and unfortunately it has given us the impression that continuing to divide is in fact a faithful way forward.
#7 (I loved your movie!), I am not talking about the continued scandal of separation, but of the actual sin of committing schism. Also, to call the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics denominations is to misunderstand what each of those communions understands itself to be.
#8: Thank you! The name actually arose out of a rather amusing conversation wherein several of us were sitting around attempting to determine whether using optimus prime to articulate the doctine of the Trinity would better describe tritheism or modalism. Geek, yes, I know.
Anyway, we are perhaps splitting hairs here, but the sin has been committed and not repented of thus it is ongoing; so to say that current Anglicans are not guilty of such is in fact not the case. We have simply continued to live in a sinful state and so are continually guilty.
It doesn’t particularly matter what EO and RC believe themselves to be; any one group of Christians can claim to be whatever it wants. What matters is their state before God which is divided (along with the thousands of protestant denominations). Or are you advocating that these Churches are ‘the true Church?’ In which case, you might want to examine the Pope’s comments concerning this very thought in Ut Unum Sint.
#10, I totally would have gotten in on that discussion! (card carrying nerd that I am).
Well, I suppose if we’re talking about corporate sin as opposed to personal sin, then yes, collectively, we’re all guilty of that. I was speaking more from a Canon Law standpoint in regards to someone being personally guilty of schism from the Church.
To discuss schism, you have to define what schism means, and it means different things to an RC or an EO than it does to a Protestant or even an Anglo-Catholic. For example: according to the Catechism:
[blockquote]schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” [Code of Canon Law c.751][/blockquote]
Obviously any non-Catholics would take issue with this definition, but as far as a Catholic is concerned, this is what schism means.
I think we’re pretty much saying the same thing in that we’re all guilty of continuing in schism (although the ecumenical developments of the past century have been very promising, IMO), but my point is that the guilt of COMMITTING the actual break belongs to those who did so at the time, not their descendants.
#11 LOL Nerds and geeks unite for fruitful theological discussion! My card carrying geek status goes even further; a few of us actually created a cartoon strip as a result of this discussion!
As per our schism discussion: very good; I understand the distinction you are making now. Yes, I think we agree then.
On the point re ecumenical discussions. I think in terms of coming closer in theological understanding, there is much hope; if you look say at the ARCIC discussions, you will see definite theological convergence (even if the official RC response to ARCIC I was not as positive, subsequent discussions have shed light on that response and more recent positioning). The challenge I think, is in the practicality, the lived expression of this agreement and so the morality of how we respond to and carry out our life together according to our agreed understanding.
The unfortunate reality is that until both the practical and the ‘theoretical’ are held together, we cannot move forward toward unity. And as is evident between Rome and the AC, we have in fact diverged in our practical/moral living of the faith.
Still there is a way forward together; but I think it means addressing issues within our own particular bodies first (in the case of ARCIC both the RC and AC) with firm practical commitment to our ecumencial vision (which too often in internal discussion is seen only secondarily).
I don’t think the pope wishes us ill; rather I think he wishes us to remain faithful to our calling even if it requires we give up our lives, or in this case, our righteous belief in our own discovery of the truth.
No sir, when you find the truth you hold onto it. It is worth more than gold and jewels. Show us where we are wrong (i.e., show us where we depart from the truth), but don’t tell us to give up our adherence to the truth. By the way, the rest of your posting was thought-provoking. Thank you.
We are all in fact schismatics: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, all the other thousands of Christian denominations. Current Anglicans are guilty of such; schism is a sin which has been perpetuated to the present and of which we are all guilty. To think otherwise is to fail to grasp the seriousness of the sin of being divided in which we are living; and unfortunately it has given us the impression that continuing to divide is in fact a faithful way forward.
Was Paul a schismatic when he broke fellowship with Barnabas? Sometimes it is better to “go your own way” and continue as best you can in testifying to a common truth than demanding an unrealistic, dictatorial adherence to the same order of worship, head bishop, and matching chasubles.
If our ancestors were guilty of schism, but remaining in the Ecclesia Anglicana, I register my affirmation of their decision to stand for truth.
First, you are welcome for the “thought-provoking” parts!
Now to the rest of your concerns:
Truth: Yes, you are correct, there are particular truths we need to hold onto: i.e. Christ is our sole means of relationship with the Father, the resurrection really did happen, the canon is closed, the Creeds etc. No dispute with you there whatsoever.
The key though, is in how we go about adhering to these truths; we cannot prioritize truth over unity in the matter. We need to hold the two together because our faith is not static, it is lived. Therefore how we actually, across time, express these truths needs to be given room for a diversity of [removed]by that I don’t mean KJS suggestion that Christ is but one means to the Father). But central to this diversity of expression is that it is given limit; hence the idea of diversity within unity.
The danger with prioritizing truth over unity is that the lived expression of truths (morality, practice) become definitive of one’s faith rather than the truths themselves; hence the liberal means of expressing their faith has become definitive of their ‘truth.’
The only thing that can serve as a limit on this ‘individuality,’ is that it be expressed within the limits of a unified body where the individuals ‘power’ or ‘voice’ is limited by being subject to hearing the voice of the whole Church (well in this case the Anglican Communion). This does not assume that some of what will be heard is not going to be heretical: some of it may certainly be that. The whole Church should serve as the limitation on individual voice and through its various synods, again across time, seek to test its decisions and the individual voices of various synod gatherings, against Scripture (this is a process though; it cannot, in most cases, be a simple propositional interpretation that is given in response – the Puritans tried this and their faith just became a gridlike interpretation of Scripture – i.e. ah we have rules for this case and here is how we can apply them – very static and not particularly Scriptural).
The challenge of course, is that Anglicanism does not currently have the structure to do the above particularly well because perhaps it hasn’t needed to until more recently. The parallel between American individualism and truth proclamation (perhaps left over from the ‘Manifest Destiny’ formation of the culture, or as seems the greater paralllel from one living outside the country at present, military might) is now prevalent in both the liberal and conservative camps of the Church to the extent that it has overwhelmed a sense of ability to move forward in faith with charity and self-giving. There are such static lines in the sand, my team vs. your team, that no one can hear the voice of another. This is a moral issue and it is one of the biggest underlying contributors to the division that occurred as is evidenced in the Reformation debates (see G.R. Evans on the topic).
So we have the Anglican Covenant Agreement which I believe (with some alteration) can address future issues that challenge both our truth and unity. Will everyone sign on? No. The far right and the far left will likely not. It’s a document that sets out definitions of what it means to be in relationship under God’s authority. It won’t create trust where people are not willing to enter into the relationship knowing that they must give of themselves. The flip side though, is that there are means for addressing the failure to adhere to truths which the whole Church proclaims (through its univeral voice). This section may need some work, but it is there. For those not willing to be bound and limited to adhering to Communion wide expression of truth, I hope and pray that they are willing to be shaped by the Lord rather than their own interpretation of how the Lord wishes them to live.
See part of the problem is that the more we divide, the narrower our truth becomes and the more shaped like us it becomes. We’re still in the ‘between time’ (His having come and His 2nd coming), so we’re still unable to see the truth clearly. The problem is that because we’re still sinful creatures it is easy to become trapped by what we think is right. But we know that our reasoning is not perfect and thus not faithful. But God of course gave us the Spirit to shape our lives even in our sinfulness and imperfection. But God gave the Spirit to the whole Church. Being divided however, means that we have turned from being shaped by the Spirit to being shaped by our own expressions of the truth. So a big question is, has the Spirit, in this given time, left our churches to their own devices until the time when (like the youger son), we finally realize how broken we are and ask to come back in. Thus until the time we are so broken and humiliated by our own self indulgences, that we are willing to hear God’s call to both truth and unity.
This is why I think Anglicanism is actually in a hopeful place right now. Those who are willing to go forward entering into a Covenant that requires giving up of self for the sake of discernment of the Word of God across time, may yet be used to help God’s kingdom rather than to continually seek articulation of truth by division.
Uggh. Unity with the likes of Schori, Chane, Bruno, Robinson, Kaeton, Russell, etc. I find that a horrifying thought. Why does he wish us ill?
We’re schismatics. We’re not even part of the true church. I find Kasper’s comment a little hypocritical.
Bishop Ackerman also has a quote on unity:
“I believe that Anglicanism has made a great contribution to the Christian Faith and from my perspective that contribution did not begin in the 16th Century but rather has been a contribution that even precedes St. Augustine’s arrival in England. I subscribe to the concept of Christian Unity as articulated by our Lord and I fervently pray for the reunion of the church of the East and of the West. I cannot speak about reunion with Rome without considering the necessity of reunion with Constantinople. My great and abiding affection for both Rome and Constantinople will continue.”
A good interview: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8641
I could swear (oops nevermind ELves) I just read that Pope Benedict XVI said something to the effect that “unity without truth is no unity”, or something to that effect.
Is my memory betraying me, or didn’t Cardinal Kasper see the message?
So that pretty much takes care of the Cardinal’s “wishes”..
Gloria in SC
#1: I agree, it is horrifying. It disgusts me. I both shook Robinson’s hand and stood beside him to take communion at a conference early this spring. The only thing that allowed me to do so was remembering that our Lord broke bread with his betrayer and with the one who denied him. Christ, who knew the absolute truth, stayed with those who were in obvious error unto death on a Cross; and in so doing He remained obedient to God’s will enabling us to be forgiven and redeemed. I believe we were asked to take up our own crosses, to feed Christ’s sheep (even if they disgust us and if we find them abhorrent to the faith), to follow him (Jn 21:15-19). I don’t think the pope wishes us ill; rather I think he wishes us to remain faithful to our calling even if it requires we give up our lives, or in this case, our righteous belief in our own discovery of the truth.
#2 You’re right, all of us are schismatics. What is the ‘true church’ of which you speak?
#2, no, you’re not schismatics. That particular rule applies only to Catholics who commit such an act. Our Anglican ancestors were guilty of schism. Current Anglicans are not personally guilty of such.
#6 We are all in fact schismatics: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, all the other thousands of Christian denominations. Current Anglicans are guilty of such; schism is a sin which has been perpetuated to the present and of which we are all guilty. To think otherwise is to fail to grasp the seriousness of the sin of being divided in which we are living; and unfortunately it has given us the impression that continuing to divide is in fact a faithful way forward.
#7 (I loved your movie!), I am not talking about the continued scandal of separation, but of the actual sin of committing schism. Also, to call the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics denominations is to misunderstand what each of those communions understands itself to be.
#4 – Cardinal Kasper often strays from the message and does not see eye to eye with the Holy Father. I believe his retirement is nigh, however.
#8: Thank you! The name actually arose out of a rather amusing conversation wherein several of us were sitting around attempting to determine whether using optimus prime to articulate the doctine of the Trinity would better describe tritheism or modalism. Geek, yes, I know.
Anyway, we are perhaps splitting hairs here, but the sin has been committed and not repented of thus it is ongoing; so to say that current Anglicans are not guilty of such is in fact not the case. We have simply continued to live in a sinful state and so are continually guilty.
It doesn’t particularly matter what EO and RC believe themselves to be; any one group of Christians can claim to be whatever it wants. What matters is their state before God which is divided (along with the thousands of protestant denominations). Or are you advocating that these Churches are ‘the true Church?’ In which case, you might want to examine the Pope’s comments concerning this very thought in Ut Unum Sint.
#10, I totally would have gotten in on that discussion! (card carrying nerd that I am).
Well, I suppose if we’re talking about corporate sin as opposed to personal sin, then yes, collectively, we’re all guilty of that. I was speaking more from a Canon Law standpoint in regards to someone being personally guilty of schism from the Church.
To discuss schism, you have to define what schism means, and it means different things to an RC or an EO than it does to a Protestant or even an Anglo-Catholic. For example: according to the Catechism:
[blockquote]schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” [Code of Canon Law c.751][/blockquote]
Obviously any non-Catholics would take issue with this definition, but as far as a Catholic is concerned, this is what schism means.
I think we’re pretty much saying the same thing in that we’re all guilty of continuing in schism (although the ecumenical developments of the past century have been very promising, IMO), but my point is that the guilt of COMMITTING the actual break belongs to those who did so at the time, not their descendants.
#11 LOL Nerds and geeks unite for fruitful theological discussion! My card carrying geek status goes even further; a few of us actually created a cartoon strip as a result of this discussion!
As per our schism discussion: very good; I understand the distinction you are making now. Yes, I think we agree then.
On the point re ecumenical discussions. I think in terms of coming closer in theological understanding, there is much hope; if you look say at the ARCIC discussions, you will see definite theological convergence (even if the official RC response to ARCIC I was not as positive, subsequent discussions have shed light on that response and more recent positioning). The challenge I think, is in the practicality, the lived expression of this agreement and so the morality of how we respond to and carry out our life together according to our agreed understanding.
The unfortunate reality is that until both the practical and the ‘theoretical’ are held together, we cannot move forward toward unity. And as is evident between Rome and the AC, we have in fact diverged in our practical/moral living of the faith.
Still there is a way forward together; but I think it means addressing issues within our own particular bodies first (in the case of ARCIC both the RC and AC) with firm practical commitment to our ecumencial vision (which too often in internal discussion is seen only secondarily).
I don’t think the pope wishes us ill; rather I think he wishes us to remain faithful to our calling even if it requires we give up our lives, or in this case, our righteous belief in our own discovery of the truth.
No sir, when you find the truth you hold onto it. It is worth more than gold and jewels. Show us where we are wrong (i.e., show us where we depart from the truth), but don’t tell us to give up our adherence to the truth. By the way, the rest of your posting was thought-provoking. Thank you.
We are all in fact schismatics: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, all the other thousands of Christian denominations. Current Anglicans are guilty of such; schism is a sin which has been perpetuated to the present and of which we are all guilty. To think otherwise is to fail to grasp the seriousness of the sin of being divided in which we are living; and unfortunately it has given us the impression that continuing to divide is in fact a faithful way forward.
Was Paul a schismatic when he broke fellowship with Barnabas? Sometimes it is better to “go your own way” and continue as best you can in testifying to a common truth than demanding an unrealistic, dictatorial adherence to the same order of worship, head bishop, and matching chasubles.
If our ancestors were guilty of schism, but remaining in the Ecclesia Anglicana, I register my affirmation of their decision to stand for truth.
Hi justinmartyr,
First, you are welcome for the “thought-provoking” parts!
Now to the rest of your concerns:
Truth: Yes, you are correct, there are particular truths we need to hold onto: i.e. Christ is our sole means of relationship with the Father, the resurrection really did happen, the canon is closed, the Creeds etc. No dispute with you there whatsoever.
The key though, is in how we go about adhering to these truths; we cannot prioritize truth over unity in the matter. We need to hold the two together because our faith is not static, it is lived. Therefore how we actually, across time, express these truths needs to be given room for a diversity of [removed]by that I don’t mean KJS suggestion that Christ is but one means to the Father). But central to this diversity of expression is that it is given limit; hence the idea of diversity within unity.
The danger with prioritizing truth over unity is that the lived expression of truths (morality, practice) become definitive of one’s faith rather than the truths themselves; hence the liberal means of expressing their faith has become definitive of their ‘truth.’
The only thing that can serve as a limit on this ‘individuality,’ is that it be expressed within the limits of a unified body where the individuals ‘power’ or ‘voice’ is limited by being subject to hearing the voice of the whole Church (well in this case the Anglican Communion). This does not assume that some of what will be heard is not going to be heretical: some of it may certainly be that. The whole Church should serve as the limitation on individual voice and through its various synods, again across time, seek to test its decisions and the individual voices of various synod gatherings, against Scripture (this is a process though; it cannot, in most cases, be a simple propositional interpretation that is given in response – the Puritans tried this and their faith just became a gridlike interpretation of Scripture – i.e. ah we have rules for this case and here is how we can apply them – very static and not particularly Scriptural).
The challenge of course, is that Anglicanism does not currently have the structure to do the above particularly well because perhaps it hasn’t needed to until more recently. The parallel between American individualism and truth proclamation (perhaps left over from the ‘Manifest Destiny’ formation of the culture, or as seems the greater paralllel from one living outside the country at present, military might) is now prevalent in both the liberal and conservative camps of the Church to the extent that it has overwhelmed a sense of ability to move forward in faith with charity and self-giving. There are such static lines in the sand, my team vs. your team, that no one can hear the voice of another. This is a moral issue and it is one of the biggest underlying contributors to the division that occurred as is evidenced in the Reformation debates (see G.R. Evans on the topic).
So we have the Anglican Covenant Agreement which I believe (with some alteration) can address future issues that challenge both our truth and unity. Will everyone sign on? No. The far right and the far left will likely not. It’s a document that sets out definitions of what it means to be in relationship under God’s authority. It won’t create trust where people are not willing to enter into the relationship knowing that they must give of themselves. The flip side though, is that there are means for addressing the failure to adhere to truths which the whole Church proclaims (through its univeral voice). This section may need some work, but it is there. For those not willing to be bound and limited to adhering to Communion wide expression of truth, I hope and pray that they are willing to be shaped by the Lord rather than their own interpretation of how the Lord wishes them to live.
See part of the problem is that the more we divide, the narrower our truth becomes and the more shaped like us it becomes. We’re still in the ‘between time’ (His having come and His 2nd coming), so we’re still unable to see the truth clearly. The problem is that because we’re still sinful creatures it is easy to become trapped by what we think is right. But we know that our reasoning is not perfect and thus not faithful. But God of course gave us the Spirit to shape our lives even in our sinfulness and imperfection. But God gave the Spirit to the whole Church. Being divided however, means that we have turned from being shaped by the Spirit to being shaped by our own expressions of the truth. So a big question is, has the Spirit, in this given time, left our churches to their own devices until the time when (like the youger son), we finally realize how broken we are and ask to come back in. Thus until the time we are so broken and humiliated by our own self indulgences, that we are willing to hear God’s call to both truth and unity.
This is why I think Anglicanism is actually in a hopeful place right now. Those who are willing to go forward entering into a Covenant that requires giving up of self for the sake of discernment of the Word of God across time, may yet be used to help God’s kingdom rather than to continually seek articulation of truth by division.