On What Can the Church Compromise?

[rr1213]

Rites have to have apostolic origin, the Anglican Use doesn’t have this.

If you are united on doctrine (big “if” but, again, bear with me), why does this matter? Whatever happened to the power to “bind and loose”? Is that power not comprehensive enough to create a new rite that is united in doctrine and under the authority of Rome, yet retains some of the “flavor” or customs of its historical past with respect to matters which are *nondoctrinal *in nature? This discussion is way too premature, I know, but I do think that Rome has to be willing to compromise on matters which are not required in order to facilitate something like this.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

What do you mean by this? I don’t understand.

The Pastoral Provision given by Pope John Paul II in 1980 allows whole Episcopalian/Anglican parishes to come into union with Rome-often in conjunction with their minister who is ordained a priest. They use the “Book of Divine Worship” which is based on the Book of Common Prayer 1979 and 1928 along with some usages from the Sarum liturgy (because Anglican eucharistic prayers are deemed lacking). This is allowed, but not “mandated” as the Church doesn’t have to ordain anyone if they don’t see it fit. However, six parishes have done so but some parishes were not allowed to by the local Catholic bishop. If I had whole parishes coming to me asking to be accepted into the Church, I think I’d look awfully hard at that and even be willing to accept them as a parish even if I didn’t end up ordaining their minister. Granted, I don’t know the whole story of some of these issues so there may be other things involved.

That could be. Still, if you are talking about a major denomination other than the Orthodox crossing the Tiber, you are almost certainly talking about the Anglicans or the Lutherans. Both of which have a married priesthood.

However, Lutherans don’t see their ministry the same way we see our Priesthood and it depends on the Anglican side. Like I said before, I would think that if these groups were willing to accept the Church’s teaching on the Priesthood, they’d be willing to accept its disciplinary teachings as well.

If you are united on doctrine (big “if” but, again, bear with me), why does this matter? Whatever happened to the power to “bind and loose”? Is that power not comprehensive enough to create a new rite that is united in doctrine and under the authority of Rome, yet retains some of the “flavor” or customs of its historical past with respect to matters which are nondoctrinal in nature? This discussion is way too premature, I know, but I do think that Rome has to be willing to compromise on matters which are not required in order to facilitate something like this.

It would certainly be “possible” I just see it as unlikely. However, “if” we were presented with a situation in which massive numbers of Lutherans or Anglicans were wanted to swim the Tiber I just see a “Use” being set up rather than a whole “Rite”. It seems, to me, to set a dangerous precedence if we start setting up Rites with full sui iuris canonical status because of accomodation. The Eastern Churches have this right because they have been around so long-since the begining. A “Use” or “Rite” within the Roman Rite that is within and under the umbrella of the Latin Rite seems a more practical and traditional solution, much like the Dominican or Ambrosian Rites were/are or the Anglican Use is.

 

[nate73]

Except I start from the premise that separation is sin. It was sin for the Catholics and the Orthodox to become separated. It was sin for the Catholics and the Protestants to become separated 500 years later. So, we should honestly try to bridge the gap and come closer together if not reunite.

Standing in the way of reuniting are a number of factors: (1) misunderstandings about each other, (2) serious doctrinal differences and (3) cultural differences or small “t” tradition differences. Forums such as this one help us to understand each other better. Theologians working together may, and I say may, help bridge the gap of doctrinal differences (personally I don’t think that this will happen this side of paradise, but I hope I am wrong).

Finally, as for the cultural or small “t” traditional differences, I assume that the Catholic Church would be willing to compromise broadly on such things if it meant reunification with their separated brethern pursuant to a Catholic understanding of doctrine. That’s the sort of compromises I am interested in discussing here. For example, if a major Anglican or Lutheran Church came into doctrinal unity with Rome and was negotiating a submission to Papal authority, shouldn’t Rome be willing to grant a dispensation (or whatever you may call it) allowing this branch of the Catholic Church to maintain and retain married clergy after reunification? If not, why not? What’s most important?

I went back and re-read my post and I can see that I did not completely explain what I meant. I am all for unity, whenever and whereever possible. I agree that alot of times unity can be accomplished by a simple explanation of terms or small compromises on non-essential items. However, I still stand by what I said that compromise is a slippery slope. Once you start to compromise on things it becomes easier and easier to do so. Ultimately, if extreme caution is not used, people can very easily end up compromising on things they should be standing rock solid on.