Declaration of Pope Francis and Archbishop Justin Welby

[GKC]

It takes a stable partner for reconciliation. In the 1960s it was hoped the C of E, and predecessors of ELCA, would be stable. Since then, they have dropped many things their
forerunners would have regarded as permanent, and sacred. No one knows which things they currently regard as permanent and sacred might get dropped in a decade or two. They are tied to the secular culture.

In a way, we could say the RCC has “reconciled” with the C of E of 1966. But that church and TEC are essentially gone, replaced by mostly different organizations with the same names. So the “progress” from that ecumenical era is mostly null and void. It led to a dead end. It has a little benefit for Catholics or Anglicans in 2016 but not much.

True.

 

[Peter_J]

It takes a stable partner for reconciliation. In the 1960s it was hoped the C of E, and predecessors of ELCA, would be stable. Since then, they have dropped many things their
forerunners would have regarded as permanent, and sacred. No one knows which things they currently regard as permanent and sacred might get dropped in a decade or two. They are tied to the secular culture.

In a way, we could say the RCC has “reconciled” with the C of E of 1966. But that church and TEC are essentially gone, replaced by mostly different organizations with the same names. So the “progress” from that ecumenical era is mostly null and void. It led to a dead end. It has a little benefit for Catholics or Anglicans in 2016 but not much.

A lot of good points there, but I have to disagree with the highlighted. Papal Supremacy (UOJ) is still a dogma of TCC.

 

[Wesrock]

Let’s assume Catholics and the CoE resolve all doctrinal and ecclesial disputes and are now seeking communion. Any idea how we would resolve the question of apostolic succession? I doubt the CoE would concede that their bishops have been invalid for centuries, but I also doubt Rome would reverse its position and would want Holy Orders properly passed on.

What would be the resolution here?

 

[GKC]

A lot of good points there, but I have to disagree with the highlighted. Papal Supremacy (UOJ) is still a dogma of TCC.

I read the “reconciled” as a relative, not an absolute concept. And, good points, as you noted, and I concurred with. It was a far more optimistic effort to look at the position of the Anglican world, and the RCC, in the environment of the early 60s, and in the environment of the relationship between Pope Paul VI and Ramsey Cantuar, and the initial formation of the ARCIC in the heady days that followed, than looking at the current possibilities, given the devolution of one side since.

No idea how things might have worked out, had others htings not worked out as they did. Would have been interesting to watch.

 

[Peter_J]

I read the “reconciled” as a relative, not an absolute concept.

I guess I can see reading it that way.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I read the “reconciled” as a relative, not an absolute concept.

Agree. I don’t honestly think that anyone believes that the Romans and the Anglicans are going to merge into one united church. That just isn’t going to happen. I doubt even it was going to happen after the 1960’s, when things got ‘heady’. I do believe, however, that there is something in between dialogue (which is rather where we are stuck right now), and total union. Reconciliation is a good, amorphous word. It leave a lot of room for exploration, and as Anglicans all know, ‘we shall not cease from exploration.’

 

[GKC]

Agree. I don’t honestly think that anyone believes that the Romans and the Anglicans are going to merge into one united church. That just isn’t going to happen. I doubt even it was going to happen after the 1960’s, when things got ‘heady’. I do believe, however, that there is something in between dialogue (which is rather where we are stuck right now), and total union. Reconciliation is a good, amorphous word. It leave a lot of room for exploration, and as Anglicans all know, ‘we shall not cease from exploration.’

I would have made no predictions, in 1966. But I would have liked to watch whatever might have followed, It would have possibly been like watching Halifax and Portal, in the 1890s, had things gone as they hoped.

 

[Peter_J]

Right. We gone from being enemies to being friends (to use inexact terminology).

 

[commenter]

Right. We gone from being enemies to being friends (to use inexact terminology).

We went from being enemies to being competitors. then to being separated brethren. then to being distant cousins at present.
The discussions are to try and preserve that cousin relationship. to avoid becoming enemies again

 

[Peter_J]

But *why *did we go from being separated brethren to being distant cousins?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I am completely undisturbed by that. The musings of people at that level were never of any interest to me over the years I was involved in dialogue before retiring. The dialogue at the national and international levels were where we have seen the most remarkable of developments theologically. Where there are enlightened people, there have been wonderful advances at lower levels, in terms of the practical and that is important in its own way.

The fact that, at some lower level, there are those who hurl invective at each other is not meaningful in the grand scheme of things. It has always been so in the history of mankind. The fact that the Pope and the head of the Lutheran World Federation will inaugurate later this month a joint commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation that will go on for many months and will be observed locally by Catholic and Lutheran clerics jointly around the world is historic in the grand scheme of things.

I have to respectfully but strongly disagree Father. I take the Council of Florence as an example. The “enlightened people” came to agreement (although there was external pressure on the Orthodox to reach an agreement, to be sure) but the common laypeople of the East effectively vetoed the reunion. In the end the “people on the ground” have to be on board, or nothing is accomplished. That is why I believe grassroots common activities between Roman Catholics and Orthodox and Anglicans are vital.

 

[Peter_J]

I have to respectfully but strongly disagree Father. I take the Council of Florence as an example. The “enlightened people” came to agreement (although there was external pressure on the Orthodox to reach an agreement, to be sure) but the common laypeople of the East effectively vetoed the reunion. In the end the “people on the ground” have to be on board, or nothing is accomplished. That is why I believe grassroots common activities between Roman Catholics and Orthodox and Anglicans are vital.

I respect your opinion, but personally I see the modern day ecumenical dialogues as extremely different from the Council of Florence. Basically night and day.

 

[abucs]

But that is not what is happening in Rome this week and with the Lutherans as we come to the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, as Don Ruggero has pointed out ad infinitim. Perhaps if you can begin to look at the images here, read the words coming from YOUR branch of Christ’s Church, and pray that we continue to live the Gospel together, then all this will continue be a part of God’s joy.

No,there is the church of Christ and there are those who have broken from it.

You are welcome to return any time and we can discuss and pray together about what form that takes, but we are not two equal branches of Christianity.

Sorry.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

No,there is the church of Christ and there are those who have broken from it.

You are welcome to return any time and we can discuss and pray together about what form that takes, but we are not two equal branches of Christianity.

Sorry.

And there we disagree. Christianity has many branches throughout the world. It always has. Christians know and love Christ and are known and beloved by Christ throughout the Church and it’s branches. Your own documents say as much. Perhaps Don Ruggero can point those documents out to you once again.

 

[abucs]

Christianity has many branches throughout the world. Christians know and love Christ and are known and beloved by Christ throughout the Church and it’s branches. Your own documents say as much.

Yes, there is no disagreement with your words i have quoted. It is instructive that you think there is.

We re not two equal branches. There is the Church of Christ and there are those separated from it.

That does not mean you are separated from Christ or are not loved by Christ.

As mentioned above, it is instructive that you think it does.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Perhaps Don Ruggero can point those documents out to you once again

It’s lamentable that, so many years after Vatican II, there are yet individual Catholics here and there who cling to an ecclesiology of the past that today is acknowledged as wrong; they cling to antiquated expressions that Rome long ago repudiated. Such should inspire pity and prayer, as people on the periphery

A Catholic intent upon being a faithful Catholic and to thinking with the mind of the Church’s Magisterium and the successor of Peter would, of course, be intimately familiar with the words of the documents of the council, of the curia, and of the Popes – and their own bishops – over the past 50+ years

Instead of focusing on the utter deficiency of the few, I prefer to highlight passages from His Holiness and His Grace which express where we have arrived to. They remind us

• We are, both, heirs of the Gospel
• We are, both, called by Christ to proclaim the Gospel
• We, both, confront questions about how authority is a service to Church unity
• We, both, are called to discern the mind of Christ for His Church today and tomorrow
• We are called to acknowledge the gifts God has given to the other and learn from the other
• We acknowledge, by our baptism, that we are each Christ’s and therefore brother/sister to each other in a state of certain if imperfect communion
• We recognize the Spirit at work in the other…the Spirit who empowers, commissions, teaches and sanctifies and who will bring our confessions into restored Communion with each other
• Wider and deeper than our differences are the faith that we share

Thanks be to God we do not live in the dark and tragic days of the past
*Fifty years ago our predecessors, Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey met in this city hallowed by the ministry and blood of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II with Archbishop Robert Runcie, and later with Archbishop George Carey, and Pope Benedict XVI with Archbishop Rowan Williams, prayed together here in this Church of Saint Gregory on the Caelian Hill from where Pope Gregory sent Augustine to evangelise the Anglo-Saxon people

On pilgrimage to the tombs of these apostles and holy forebears, Catholics and Anglicans recognize that we are heirs of the treasure of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the call to share that treasure with the whole world. We have received the Good News of Jesus Christ through the holy lives of men and women who preached the Gospel in word and deed and we have been commissioned, and empowered by the Holy Spirit, to be Christ’s witnesses “to the ends of the earth” /…/

Fifty years ago our predecessors recognized the “serious obstacles” that stood in the way of a restoration of complete faith and sacramental life between us. Nevertheless, they set out undeterred, not knowing what steps could be taken along the way, but in fidelity to the Lord’s prayer that his disciples be one. Much progress has been made concerning many areas that have kept us apart. Yet new circumstances have presented new disagreements among us, particularly regarding the ordination of women and more recent questions regarding human sexuality. Behind these differences lies a perennial question about how authority is exercised in the Christian community. These are today some of the concerns that constitute serious obstacles to our full unity. While, like our predecessors, we ourselves do not yet see solutions to the obstacles before us, we are undeterred. **In our trust and joy in the Holy Spirit we are confident that dialogue and engagement with one another will deepen our understanding and help us to discern the mind of Christ for his Church. We trust in God’s grace and providence, knowing that the Holy Spirit will open new doors and lead us into all truth

These differences we have named cannot prevent us from recognizing one another as brothers and sisters in Christ by reason of our common baptism. Nor should they ever hold us back from discovering and rejoicing in the deep Christian faith and holiness we find within each other’s traditions. These differences must not lead to a lessening of our ecumenical endeavours. Christ’s prayer at the Last Supper that all might be on is as imperative for his disciples today as it was at that moment of his impending passion, death and resurrection, and consequent birth of his Church. Nor should our differences come in the way of our common prayer: not only can we pray together, we must pray together, giving voice to our shared faith and joy in the Gospel of Christ, the ancient Creeds, and the power of God’s love, made present in the Holy Spirit, to overcome all sin and division. And so, with our predecessors, we urge our clergy and faithful not to neglect or undervalue that certain yet imperfect communion that we already share**

Wider and deeper than our differences are the faith that we share and our common joy in the Gospel. Christ prayed that his disciples may all be one, “so that the world might believe” (John 17: 21). /…/ Jesus gave his life in love, and rising from the dead overcame even death itself. Christians who have come to this faith, have encountered Jesus and the victory of his love in their own lives, and are impelled to share the joy of this Good News with others. Our ability to come together in praise and prayer to God and witness to the world rests on the confidence that we share a common faith and a substantial measure of agreement in faith /…/

We have become partners and companions on our pilgrim journey, facing the same difficulties, and strengthening each other by learning to value the gifts which God has given to the other, and to receive them as our own in humility and gratitude*

 

[abucs]

I prefer to talk reality and not be insulted as :

lamentable
clinging to an ecclesiology
of the past (1 of 2)
acknowledged as wrong
clinging to antiquated expressions
repudiated.
pitiful
people on the periphery
utter deficiency of the few
dark and tragic
of the past (2 of 2)
preventing us from recognizing one another as brothers and sisters in Christ
holding us back from discovering and rejoicing in the deep Christian faith

If your castigating post arises simply from the expressed opinion that those organisations who have separated themselves from the see of Peter are not equal to it, then your idea of ecumenism through charitable dialogue must clearly be in question my friend. .

Nothing i have written here is as dismissive and as uncharitable as your post.

I would ask you to reflect on that.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

But *why *did we go from being separated brethren to being distant cousins?

Because the phrase “separated brethren” was found to be no longer sufficient as the theological reflections progressed that followed upon Vatican II, when this phrase was used. It was deemed inadequate by those charged with the dialogue as we moved into the 1980s, particularly. There was an imperative to set aside the expression since it no longer truthfully expressed where the dialogue had taken us…as mandated by how such expressions are to be used and articulated in Unitatis Redintegratio.

We are not, however, “distant cousins.” We are brothers and sisters. We share the same baptismal character because we are all baptised into Christ; we are in a state of real and certain, albeit imperfect and impaired, communion among the baptised.

In spite of the historical and canonical issues, the Spirit fosters the deepest bonds of communion among us, rooted in the ontological character conferred at baptism.

As Pope Saint John Paul II wrote in Ut Unum Sint,
Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past /…/
Pope Saint John Paul II, himself a Council Father of Vatican II, took up the declarations of the Council Fathers, particularly Unitatis Redintegratio, reiterating them by his quoting them and expanding them by his commentary…notably:
“It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”
Thus, we have been compelled by the events of history to say that God has used non-Catholics to build up His Church and that He continues to use them and what they do to sanctify His People and provide them access to the community of salvation – which theologically means that they attain Heaven precisely through those channels and apart from visible membership with the Church of Rome.

The Council Fathers particularly discussed all of this in terms of the martyrs of Uganda in the 19th century and the martyrs of World War II…this was an important turning point in setting aside the mindset of the past and for the Fathers to embrace a new path forward with the ecumenical movement. It also meant the end of an “ecumenism of return” mindset. As Pope Saint John Paul II wrote, looking back on one of the greatest councils in the history of the Church:
*13. The same Document carefully draws out the doctrinal implications of this situation. Speaking of the members of these Communities, it declares: “All those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have a right to be honoured by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers and sisters in the Lord by the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church”.

With reference to the many positive elements present in the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Decree adds: "All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. The separated brethren also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in many ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation".

These are extremely important texts for ecumenism. It is not that beyond the boundaries of the Catholic community there is an ecclesial vacuum. Many elements of great value (eximia), which in the Catholic Church are part of the fullness of the means of salvation and of the gifts of grace which make up the Church, are also found in the other Christian Communities.*

 

[abucs]

In my experience of the ecumenical movement, there was a destructive tendency for using ambiguous language in order to foster a sense of unity that was not really there.

Some we had been speaking with were moving farther and farther away from the See of Peter. Unfortunately the language we used was becoming more vague and ambiguous to 1) maintain the idea of unity, 2) to “not offend anyone” and 3) to “not be judgemental”.

Those of this view in our parishes and schools were gradually watering down the Catholic faith to accommodate this false idea of unity.This was done not just in the name of ecumenism but also a false secular universalism. I think it was a disaster.

To be seen to be Catholic was falsely cast as the new obstruction in dialogue by those wanting to control language and create a new church in their image…

This has not been a good thing as the subsequent millions of lapsed Catholics attest.

We can see how destructive ambiguous language has been in the Anglican communion. We have much more in common with the Global south who are in danger of schism with many ruling Progressives of the north.

We cannot go back to the ambiguous language of the past which has been so destructive and so divisive. Let us talk plainly, honestly and with charity.

Let us make common cause where we can, with those Anglicans who share our vision and be honest with those who don’t

I don’t want to see one more Catholic child lose their faith because they see the church as not really meaning anything or on the other side being falsely cast as authoritarian hardliners who belong in the past…

 

[pnewton]

In my experience of the ecumenical movement, there was a destructive tendency for using ambiguous language in order to foster a sense of unity that was not really there.

To better understand your opinion and position, might I ask what your role was in the ecumenical movement and how long you were involved?