Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[SyroMalankara]

When you talk about the Church of England’s subsidiaries I begin to suspect you are talking out of your hat.

Not really, it plays out on the ground pretty regularly. Dad was a lay-deacon in the Church of South India, he considered himself (low church) Anglican (CofE) even though it is a united church. We grew up with both this and it’s sister Marthoma Syrian Church. Depending on the bishop and polity, subsidiary/affiliate is exactly on point.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Not really, it plays out on the ground pretty regularly. Dad was a lay-deacon in the Church of South India, he considered himself (low church) Anglican (CofE) even though it is a united church. We grew up with both this and it’s sister Marthoma Syrian Church. Depending on the bishop and polity, subsidiary/affiliate is exactly on point.

But of course neither the Church of South India nor the Marthoma Syrian Church is a subsidiary of the Church of England.

 

[SyroMalankara]

But of course neither the Church of South India nor the Marthoma Syrian Church is a subsidiary of the Church of England.

Again, that depends on who you are speaking with. The Anglican pre-CSI was a subsidiary, and many who united still consider themselves Anglican, not the other united churches. The Marthoma is not a subsidiary, but was heavily subsidized in it’s initial formation and subsequent years. So, not a subsidiary, more like a divestiture.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Again, that depends on who you are speaking with. The Anglican pre-CSI was a subsidiary, and many who united still consider themselves Anglican, not the other united churches. The Marthoma is not a subsidiary, but was heavily subsidized in it’s initial formation and subsequent years. So, not a subsidiary, more like a divestiture.

So, the Mar Thoma Syrians are not subsidiary. So far so good. The CSI — well we could argue about whether the CofE dioceses in South India were subsidiaries or simply part, but it is absolutely clear that the CSI is not a subsidiary but an independent church. Of course it has members who consider themselves Anglican: it is part of the Anglican Communion, after all.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So, the Mar Thoma Syrians are not subsidiary. So far so good. The CSI — well we could argue about whether the CofE dioceses in South India were subsidiaries or simply part, but it is absolutely clear that the CSI is not a subsidiary but an independent church. Of course it has members who consider themselves Anglican: it is part of the Anglican Communion, after all.

In any case, the first point was that those parts that consider themselves Anglican/CoEsuccessioners/etc would consider the agreements among the ‘full communion’ partner ships to extend to them as well. Many of the non-Anglican unitive parts did not (in India) have very any restrictions on pulpit sharing and communion anyhow. That is, until WO starting. Now there is a patchwork of ‘full communion’, ‘almost full communion’, ‘impaired communion’, no communion among dioceses within the same church and even among individual clergy/parishes.

That’s not what the Catholic Church has as it’s goal toward ‘full Communion’.

 

[Picky_Picky]

In any case, the first point was that those parts that consider themselves Anglican/CoEsuccessioners/etc would consider the agreements among the ‘full communion’ partner ships to extend to them as well. Many of the non-Anglican unitive parts did not (in India) have very any restrictions on pulpit sharing and communion anyhow. That is, until WO starting. Now there is a patchwork of ‘full communion’, ‘almost full communion’, ‘impaired communion’, no communion among dioceses within the same church and even among individual clergy/parishes.

That’s not what the Catholic Church has as it’s goal toward ‘full Communion’.

Thank you for your concession (I take it that “in any case” is a concession).

I am straying here beyond my self-imposed boundaries a little, but please consider this:

John’s Gospel spells out the need for unity. How is that to be achieved? One could simply wait until God disposes. That does hardly seem to match the requirement. One could take the RCC point of view (and not only the RCC): “We have the truth, unity will come about when you acknowledge that fact” (and submit to Rome). That hasn’t worked for the last 1500 years. The Anglican view has been different. Anglicans have tended to follow the words of the Bonn Agreement: “Intercommunion does not require from either Communion the acceptance of all doctrinal opinion, sacramental devotion or liturgical practice characteristic of the other, but implies that each believes the other to hold all the essentials of the Christian Faith.”

That’s a messy, awkward sort of communion, and it brings all the inconsistency you highlight. It may also, perhaps, be the only sort of communion that can lead to unity.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thank you for your concession (I take it that “in any case” is a concession).

I am straying here beyond my self-imposed boundaries a little, but please consider this:

John’s Gospel spells out the need for unity. How is that to be achieved? One could simply wait until God disposes. That does hardly seem to match the requirement. One could take the RCC point of view (and not only the RCC): “We have the truth, unity will come about when you acknowledge that fact” (and submit to Rome). That hasn’t worked for the last 1500 years. The Anglican view has been different. Anglicans have tended to follow the words of the Bonn Agreement: “Intercommunion does not require from either Communion the acceptance of all doctrinal opinion, sacramental devotion or liturgical practice characteristic of the other, but implies that each believes the other to hold all the essentials of the Christian Faith.”

That’s a messy, awkward sort of communion, and it brings all the inconsistency you highlight. It may also, perhaps, be the only sort of communion that can lead to unity.

No concession on my part, however, it isn’t worth pursuing in this thread to get my point across. The ‘unity’ that this models, is no unity at all. It is actually chaos called unity for the sake of feeling good. No thanks.

 

[commenter]

… One could take the RCC point of view (and not only the RCC): “We have the truth, unity will come about when you acknowledge that fact” (and submit to Rome). That hasn’t worked for the last 1500 years. The Anglican view has been different. Anglicans have tended to follow the words of the Bonn Agreement: “Intercommunion does not require from either Communion the acceptance of all doctrinal opinion, sacramental devotion or liturgical practice characteristic of the other, but implies that each believes the other to hold all the essentials of the Christian Faith.”

That’s a messy, awkward sort of communion, and it brings all the inconsistency you highlight. It may also, perhaps, be the only sort of communion that can lead to unity.

I am not sure why you picked 1500 years as the timeframe Catholicism hasn’t worked.
Actually you might have pointed out it by some standard it “hasn’t worked” even in gospel times (John 6) when people walked away from Jesus because they couldn’t accept the doctrine of the Eucharist. I am sure some disciples were tempted to run after them, “Wait, there’s room for diversity of opinion here, what we have in common is more important than what divides us, ARCIC”), etc.

I argue that Catholicism is “working” right now. Catholicism is still the same Faith found, we’ll say, 1500 years ago to use your benchmark (and much earlier). Anglicanism isn’t even the same faith they had 15 years ago. Anglicanism is tied to the secular culture, and will follow it wherever. That is their “unity”. That is what you have without the Magisterium.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I am not sure why you picked 1500 years as the timeframe Catholicism hasn’t worked.
Actually you might have pointed out it by some standard it “hasn’t worked” even in gospel times (John 6) when people walked away from Jesus because they couldn’t accept the doctrine of the Eucharist. I am sure some disciples were tempted to run after them, “Wait, there’s room for diversity of opinion here, what we have in common is more important than what divides us, ARCIC”), etc.

I argue that Catholicism is “working” right now. Catholicism is still the same Faith found, we’ll say, 1500 years ago to use your benchmark (and much earlier). Anglicanism isn’t even the same faith they had 15 years ago. Anglicanism is tied to the secular culture, and will follow it wherever. That is their “unity”. That is what you have without the Magisterium.

Oh, I don’t think I said that Catholicism hasn’t worked, now that would be some statement! I was suggesting that what hasn’t worked is the concept that the road to unity is for the rest of Christianity to submit to … well, to whichever brand of Christianity it is felt is the one to which submission should be made. Doesn’t work as a concept. Hasn’t happened. (1500 years approx since Chalcedon, I think was what made me choose that figure.)

 

[Peter_J]

I was suggesting that what hasn’t worked is the concept that the road to unity is for the rest of Christianity to submit to … well, to whichever brand of Christianity it is felt is the one to which submission should be made.

Perhaps we could use you in some of our discussions with Orthodox Christians.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Perhaps we could use you in some of our discussions with Orthodox Christians.

Good place to start, but I’m not hopeful, even with the aid of my powerful intellect.

 

[SyroMalankara]

In any case, the first point was that those parts that consider themselves Anglican/CoEsuccessioners/etc would consider the agreements among the ‘full communion’ partner ships to extend to them as well. Many of the non-Anglican unitive parts did not (in India) have very any restrictions on pulpit sharing and communion anyhow. That is, until WO starting. Now there is a patchwork of ‘full communion’, ‘almost full communion’, ‘impaired communion’, no communion among dioceses within the same church and even among individual clergy/parishes.

That’s not what the Catholic Church has as it’s goal toward ‘full Communion’.

It’s as if Providence provided evidence of the difficulty of maintaining one’s integrity, an Episcopalian posted this on ByzCath, the poster’s statement is quoted to show one Episcopalian’s perspective

In fact, at the Consecration I was mentioning earlier, a number of folks representing a variety of our Episcopal religious orders were present.

Also, there is now a link to photos from the Consecration which show a few shots of the Eastern hierarchs who were present, including H.E. Alexios of Atlanta and H.E. Nektarios of Jerusalem.

And our own Eastern Church, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church was also present, represented by Mar Theodosius of North America and Europe.

In fact, this was the first consecration, I believe in our history, where bishops from all of our full communion partners were present.

If interested in the photos here is the link:

flickr.com/photos/87226290@N05/sets/72157652649853316

While it is of interest to me, I find the participation of the Marthoma Syrian Church in this to be extremely troubling, a step away reunion with their Mother Church (that keeps being repeated from that faction), and revealing of their protestant core despite all the trappings and double-speak.