The message Friday during an afternoon self-select group session was a gentle one delivered by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster. He said the search for unity was worth the effort, but that “new tensions only slow the progress.”
But Bishop Alvarez said that what had been “a very good process even under Pope John Paul II” has changed under the new pope.
“They are the ones who are the obstacles,” Bishop Alvarez said, contending that Pope Benedict was placing too much emphasis on issues such as the ordination of women and homosexuals, which were not issues decided during the Church’s first seven ecumenical councils. “My concern is that they open themselves to dialogue instead of just saying this is wrong.”
“They are the ones who are the obstacles†Thus spake Bishop Alvarez about the Roman Catholic Church. Kinda breathtaking. Also blaming Pope Benedict XVI. Yes, it is everybody else’s fault. I think that a counsellor would find more than a whiff of infantilism here: rage against the world for not bending to his will.
Great quote. My kids say this to me all the time. 🙂
I renew my question: will the apostolic Churches – the Catholic and Orthodox – bother to send representatives to Lambeth 2018, except, perhaps, as evangelists? If so, why?
It would be easy to dismiss Bp. Alvarez as an aberration, as single case. But of course, he isn’t, and we know it. On the other hand, he has performed the invaluable service of unmasking the Anglican meaning of “dialogue”, which is something like “Listen to me until you agree with me, and if you don’t, you are a failure at dialogue.” Oh, wait, that’s Bp. Alvarez complaint against the Catholics.
Now I’m all confused!
Bp. Alvarez – who moved? When you add polygamy to your agenda, you will find this to be a stumbling block as well. Forget it when you make the pantheistic theology of a minority like Spong and Chane the official theology.
People like Bishop Alvarez are the obstacles to ecumenicism.
Its sort of like the apprehended speeder blaming his apprehension on the exisitance of speed limits.
Whether or not you agree with where Bp. Alvarez is coming from theologically, he does raise an interesting point viz a viz ecumenical relationships with Rome. If Rome’s position is that they are the One True Church of Christ, and the rest are ‘ecclesial communities,’ then the whole point (from Rome’s POV) of ecumenical discussion and unity is conformity and conversion to Roman ways of doing things. In fact, the ARCIC documents seem to show a theological shift only in the direction [i]towards[/i] Rome, and not a ‘mutual movment’ towards both Rome and Canterbury. I’m not sure Rome can expect Anglicans to listen to their pleas for unity whilst transubstantiation, papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, the Marian dogmas, Apostolicae Curae are all still in the playbook. It’s difficult for me to understand how Rome can claim they seek unity when we’re the ones moving all the furniture.
Of course JP2 died more than three years ago. But he, too, read Vincent of Lerins.
You know, I really think that the events of August 2003 may have something to do with this! TEC represents the new Donatism (small region ignoring catholic consensus).
One might challenge every other aspect of this statement, but there really is NOTHING here.
One thing I’ve learned about working in libraries:
The ones breaking the rules are usually the ones who complain that the ones enforcing the rules are causing all the problems. “If you would ignore the rules like I do, then there wouldn’t be any conflict, and I wouldn’t have to report YOU to your boss for being rude to me!”
🙄
Moving the furniture? As opposed to burning it to warm the house as Episcopalians like to do?
Ecumenism does not mean “Rome’s way of doing things” or the Eastern Catholics would not exist. It does mean substantial theological agreement. But anyone who thinks Rome has not been flexible and accommodating has little historical memory. There was a time when Catholics were forbidden, in most cases, from entering a protestant building. The first time Cardinal Hume heard the Lord’s Prayer in English was at his father’s funeral.
Rome is at least honest and clear about its positions. ARCIC has agreed that the positions are justifiable if one accepts the Catholic hermeneutic–a big “if” for the protestant mindset. On the other hand, trying to dialogue with Anglicans is like talking to a patient with multiple personality disorder. Every conceivable position on every issue, none of them mandatory or forbidden, all in serious disagreement with other factions of Anglicanism. (I was an Anglican who agreed with all the “playbook” positions Isaac dislikes, with the exception of believing in the efficacy of Anglican orders).
There is something faintly ludicrous for a flyspeck like the Episcopalian community of Puerto Rico (made up largely of Catholics in disciplinary difficulties with their former church) to be telling Rome what to think. But the Vatican is remarkably tolerant of such silliness in our day.
Is it in fact true that the seven ecumenical councils had nothing to say about women in orders? I thought there was something from at least one of them to the contrary. Could someone knowledgeable comment on this?
Anyone who thinks the ecumenical problems of the last few years come from Pope Benedict rather than from the Anglican side is likely to be in error on other things also.
Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea mentions the sect of the “Paulianists” and how such of their clergy and deaconesses as become Catholic may, if their lives are blameless, be accepted as clergy in the Catholic Church. The canon ends, “We have mentioned the deaconesses serving in this condition, although they have not received the imposition of hands, and they must absolutely be reckoned among the laity.”
Doctor Tighe got to it just before me. Here is Canon 19 in full:
[i]Concerning the former Paulinists who seek refuge in the catholic church, it is determined that they must be rebaptised unconditionally. Those who in the past have been enrolled among the clergy, if they appear to be blameless and irreproachable, are to be rebaptised and ordained by the bishop of the catholic church. But if on inquiry they are shown to be unsuitable, it is right that they should be deposed. Similarly with regard to deaconesses and all in general whose names have been included in the roll, the same form shall be observed. We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity.[/i]
What impertinence…this Bp. could learn a thing or two from BXVI…is this one of those “enlightened” Bishops who think they’ve “progressed” beyond the clear foundations of the faith.
Agonizingly naive.
And Pope Benedict said, “My dear Bishop Alvarez, perhaps we should start at the beginning.”
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Re #s 3 & 6
First let me throw out the caveat that I do not speak for the Orthodox Church. That said, it is my hope that the Orthodox will decline to send representatives to any future Lambeth meetings. I say this for the same reason that I believe we should withdraw from the NCC and WCC. Participation in such groups and at non-Orthodox church councils has tended to lend weight to a dangerous and very un-Orthodox understanding of ecumenism.
Ecumenism when properly understood is not a horrible thing. You can’t witness the Truth to people you won’t talk to. But “dialogue†which in any way lends itself to the compromising of the Truth is scandalous. Like our Roman Catholic brothers the Orthodox Church has an exclusivist self understanding which is absolutely irreconcilable with Anglicanism and its tenets. Christ’s Church is not divided. And there is not more than one.
Dialogue when pursued in an effort to get people to agree that you can have two versions of The Truth and that both are OK is not something we either need or want to have anything to do with. Again though, I want to stress that interfaith discussions are perfectly OK if you are doing so for good and legitimate reasons. In a nutshell those reasons (IMO) would include…
1. Giving witness to the love of God and His Truth.
2. Gaining a better understanding of the differences in faith in order to promote peaceful coexistence with non-Orthodox religious confessions where it is clear that their beliefs are incompatible with Orthodoxy.
3. Cooperation where such is possible in things like works of charity and combating the rising tide of radical secularism and other anti-Christian movements in the modern world.
Isaac,
As I understand your post you are basically saying that you see no point in dialogue with Rome while they are still Catholics. Rome has always made it clear what they believe in. While I am not Roman Catholic I deeply respect their church and their current Pope. You know exactly where you stand with them. In expecting them to renounce solemnly defined dogmas of their church you just might possibly be setting yourself up for disappointment.
However, for what it is worth Rome has clearly reached a reciprocal consensus about Anglicanism. Namely they have concluded (even if they are too polite to say it directly) that the Anglican Communion has jumped off a theological cliff and is still in free fall. Any further dialogue between Rome and Canterbury will have the same relevance as dialogue with the Dali Lama.
In the near future I expect this to be made abundantly clear when Rome makes provisions for the acceptance of the TAC into full communion. Like Orthodoxy their door is open and the welcome mat is out. But it will be on their terms. Which is to say that no you can’t join the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox) while remaining Protestant
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
Well done, John! Well done!
Dear right, John. And I am a part of TAC and I AM worried, for the RC is wholly committed to its principles and cannot and will not alter them to make Anglicans comfortable. And why should they? Their standards are their own. I don’t agree with them, but so what? Why should they care what I think? And this is the problems of having standards and keeping them: YOU CANNOT BE INCLUSIVE. TEC doesn’t grasp this and neither do people who keep talking about dialogue. (see #3 above.) How can we be so gullible, when we have been shown, over and over, that #3 has stated the case clearly and finally. LM
The opinions expressed in Bp. Alvarez’ statement, as well as in comment #6, demonstrate that ecumenism has limits. We are “separated brethren” for a reason. Sometimes the differences are semantic and historic in nature, or, perhaps, derive from philosophical suppositions secondary to scriptural exegesis. Such differences can be worked out in ecumenical dialogue.
Sometimes a disagreement is a disagreement is a disagreement. We can like one another, cooperate in local social ministries, and so on. We cannot claim unity in Faith and we cannot share communion. The history of Christianity is one long story of groups leaving the main body of the Church, local Churches going in and out of Communion with one another (sometimes for non-theological reasons, to be sure) and then those groups dying off. Arian churches persistent for hundreds of years after Nicea. But they died out eventually.
Perhaps history is the best judge of these things, and we should approach ecumenism not with cynicism, but with an understanding that there might come an end-game moment when we walk away from the Table; we walk away as friends, perhaps, but not as One in Christ.
Re 19
Larry,
You use the term standards which to me suggests church discipline though I think you are using it in reference to dogma. In any case I believe Rome will likely show some considerable flexibility towards TAC in respect to church discipline. It is likely that their clergy will be retained (following valid ordination) and their married state will be accepted. I am not sure if that will extend into the next generation of clergy. This will certainly not apply to the bishops of course since that is outside of the immemorial discipline of the church universal (both east and west). I also expect that the liturgy used will be one with a decidedly Anglican flavor while being theologically consistent with RC teachings.
The area where there will be no accommodation and where frankly none is expected nor has any been requested, is in doctrine.This is a given. And all of the bishops of TAC have signaled their full agreement with each and every article of Roman Catholic doctrine by signing their names to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Every bishop in TAC has declared himself to be theologically Roman Catholic.
What is coming down the road will reflect that.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
I wonder if the laity of TAC realize quite what their bishops have subscribed to? It may be possible that they are as ignorant as many TEC laity are that several of their bishops are, in truth, agnostics, gnostics, unitarians, Arians, and so on. And will they follow their shepherds where they lead?
John,
Actually, I would object to conversation with anyone who’s starting position is ‘We’re always right, and believing that we’re always right is a condition of being in unity with us.’ What’s the point? I may be disappointed to hear that solemnly defined doctrine isn’t going to be retracted; I’d be happy if Rome were to simply say they had no right to define dogma [i]by themselves[/i] in the first place (and, forgive and correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t that the Orthodox position as well?). I mean, do you believe Patriarch Bartholomew would ever accept that the Bishop of Rome “enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise?” I think you and I would both agree that Universal Jurisdiction is a very serious stumbling block.
And re:Eastern Catholics, wasn’t the whole point of Orientalium Dignitas, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, and The Courage to Be Ourselves to resist latinization that was already taking place? That doesn’t give me a great deal of hope that a TAC uniate isn’t going to slowly become a Roman group with bishops in chimeres.
Again, the question is simple: How do you enter into dialogue with someone who believes they’re always right? (I’d apply this question to TEC reappraiser bishops, as well, BTW.)
More to the point, though, if you can/do sign your name to the CCC, why be Anglican at all? That’s why I’m not Roman Catholic; I can’t put my name to the CCC. I may be being dense here, but I can’t see the point of talks of ‘unity’ when ‘unity’ means conformity to something that isn’t Anglican in any substantive way. I have much more respect for western rite Orthodoxy than I do for TAC’s attempts at a uniate jurisdiction. There is a much more real sense there of a continuation with Anglican tradition than what I can sense coming from the Roman side of things (I think the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is perfection).
re 23
Isaac,
You wrote…
[blockquote] Actually, I would object to conversation with anyone who’s starting position is ‘We’re always right, and believing that we’re always right is a condition of being in unity with us.’ What’s the point? [/blockquote]
You are not alone.. There are large numbers of people who agree with you. They are called Protestants.
[blockquote] I’d be happy if Rome were to simply say they had no right to define dogma by themselves in the first place (and, forgive and correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t that the Orthodox position as well?).[/blockquote]
It is indeed one of the points which separates the Roman Church from Orthodoxy.
[blockquote] I mean, do you believe Patriarch Bartholomew would ever accept that the Bishop of Rome “enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise?†I think you and I would both agree that Universal Jurisdiction is a very serious stumbling block.[/blockquote]
This is a very interesting topic and one which I have addressed at some length on my blog and in discussions with Roman Catholics in other forums. IMO (and I will go out on a limb here and say this is the near universally held position in Orthodoxy) Vatican I is a non-starter with us. Roman ecclesiology is inconsistent with that present in the age of the undivided Church. It is also contrary to the consensus Patrum. I refer you to the [url=http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm]excellent essay[/url] by Met. Iakovos of Pergamon on the unity of the Church in the first three centuries. I will caution that it is neither short nor light reading. But it is well worth the time if Eucharistic theology and ecclesiology have any interest for you. With respect to the dogma of papal infallibility. That is simply heresy as far as we are concerned.
You also mention the Ecumenical Patriarch. Thats a touchy subject since he is by Orthodox standards generally seen as rather liberal. Of course, rather like in TEC, the terms liberal and conservative are relative. In TEC a very conservative priest might object to marrying two men. In Orthodoxy a liberal priest might wear a roman collar instead of a cassock. A really liberal priest might own a razor.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate has been at the forefront (for good or ill is hotly debated) of our involvement with other religious confessions. That See has also been behind a number of other controversial activities including unilateral alterations to the church calendar and stepping on the toes of other Orthodox churches in their canonical territory. Of course those sorts of squabbles have been going on since the day after Pentecost. Still the EP, while certainly respected, is often looked on with raised eyebrows by much of the Orthodox world.
As a parting observation, it was also the EP that at one time was spearheading efforts to get the Orthodox world to recognize the Anglican Communion as something close to a Western Orthodox Church. Needless to say the reaction from most of the rest of the Orthodox world ran from laughter to a solemn pronouncement from at least three jurisdictions proclaiming the branch theory as heresy and pronouncing anathema on it and its adherents.
[blockquote] And re:Eastern Catholics, wasn’t the whole point of Orientalium Dignitas, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, and The Courage to Be Ourselves to resist latinization that was already taking place? That doesn’t give me a great deal of hope that a TAC uniate isn’t going to slowly become a Roman group with bishops in chimeres.[/blockquote]
From the Orthodox POV Rome has a pretty poor track record with respect to the Eastern Churches throughout its history. The uniates have certainly not been spared. But then if you are signing onto Roman Dogma then you leave yourself little room for complaint.
[blockquote] Again, the question is simple: How do you enter into dialogue with someone who believes they’re always right? (I’d apply this question to TEC reappraiser bishops, as well, BTW.)[/blockquote]
I think the logical futility of that would be obvious if you reject the possibility that God founded only one church. Again we are back to the whole Protestant thing. Of course one can see the fruit of that tree. How many separate Protestant churches and sects are there now? Someone told me (anecdotally since I never checked) that they stopped counting at around 100,000.
[blockquote] More to the point, though, if you can/do sign your name to the CCC, why be Anglican at all? That’s why I’m not Roman Catholic; I can’t put my name to the CCC. I may be being dense here, but I can’t see the point of talks of ‘unity’ when ‘unity’ means conformity to something that isn’t Anglican in any substantive way. I have much more respect for western rite Orthodoxy than I do for TAC’s attempts at a uniate jurisdiction. There is a much more real sense there of a continuation with Anglican tradition than what I can sense coming from the Roman side of things (I think the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is perfection).[/blockquote]
I think again what TAC is looking for is the right to preserve their liturgical and spiritual traditions and discipline to the extent that such is not in conflict with Roman doctrine. This is substantially what exists within the Orthodox Western Rite. It is important to note however that the WR is NOT Anglican in theology. It is Orthodox. There is no lip service to the 39 articles which are are as heretical as papal infallibility. The traditions of High Church Anglo-Catholicism and its disciplines that were not incompatible with Orthodoxy (most were not) were preserved with only very minor changes. But doctrinally they are as Orthodox as the Patriarch of Moscow.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]