he is speaking of Anglican communions that are exploring reunion with the Catholic Church (and in some cases with the Orthodox) yet refuse to give up some Protestant doctrines and practices. His suggestion is entirely sound.Why should they?
Kasper’s request says more about his own presuppositions than anything else.
Good. Then give an clear example of an explicitly Anglican theology that he referenced.He explicitly mentioned theology.
Are you actually reading what’s been said?What I said. It implies that people exist in abstraction from the traditions of Christianity that have shaped them, so that if I as an individual Protestant was never a member of the Catholic Church, it makes no sense to speak of the community to which I belong “returning” to the Catholic Church.
For my part, let me note that “ecumenism of return” always was an unfortunate phrase. ** You can’t return to something unless you first have left it. Almost all non-Catholic Christians were brought up as non-Catholics. They never have been Catholics. If they were to become Catholics now, they would not be “returning” to the Church. They would be entering for the first time.**
When such people come “home to Rome,” they bring with them ways of theologizing, prayer, worship, and discipline that are not necessarily incompatible with the Catholic faith. The Church does not object to their keeping these distinctives.
What is insisted upon, though, is uniformity of belief. That’s why creeds talk about matters of faith but never matters of spirituality or discipline. Under a regime of real ecumenism, everyone would believe the same (and thus be Catholic), but there would be many ways to pray or to worship or to work through theological questions. You’d be free to subscribe to Franciscan spirituality or Benedictine, to the Mass is Latin or to the Divine Liturgy in Greek, to Thomistic or Augustinian approaches to theological propositions.
Pope Benedict knows all this and, if Brian Harrison’s reading is right, is trying to convey it **not just to **non-Catholics but to Catholics too.
I think you need to actually read what’s been offered.The point is that we are all members of communities and traditions, and these communities have histories. They can “return” to something from which they have long been separated, even if all of their members were baptized into the separated communities and have never belonged to the parent tradition. The fact that Mr. Keating, who puts himself forward as a spokesperson for Catholicism, does not see something so obvious is truly bizarre. It shows just how deeply the American Catholic “apologetics” movement has been infected by fundamentalist Protestant ideas.
This is, in the end, what’s ultimately on the table…What’s bizarre about it? It’s only bizarre if you see ecumenism as unconditional surrender of one party.
• that Anglicans be open to and desire a recovery and re-reception under certain clear conditions of the exercise of universal primacy by the Bishop of Rome;
- An experience of universal primacy of this kind would confirm two particular conclusions we have reached:
• that Roman Catholics be open to and desire a re-reception of the exercise of primacy by the Bishop of Rome and the offering of such a ministry to the whole Church of God.
- When the real yet imperfect communion between us is made more visible, the web of unity which is woven from communion with God and reconciliation with each other is extended and strengthened. Thus the “Amen” which Anglicans and Roman Catholics say to the one Lord comes closer to being an “Amen” said together by the one holy people witnessing to God’s salvation and reconciling love in a broken world.
Good. Now offer some actual suggestions for concessions on either side like I asked you for beforeIf ecumenism is our mutual discernment of the requirements of the one Catholic Faith we both profess, then there is nothing bizarre about either side pointing out things that need to be corrected in the other.
Then what exactly are you suggesting Edwin?Neither, might I add, is there anything bizarre or unfair about the process requiring far more concessions on one side or the other. I’m not suggesting that Anglicans and members of the Roman Communion enter this conversation on an equal footing.
Please be sure to actually read what’s being said before jumping to conclusions if you do take this route.Probably speaking to Karl Keating would be a good idea, rather than trying to refute his ideas in the mouths of others.
I think you have to actually understand them clearly before you can say whether or not it’s irrelevant to the discussion. I’m not exactly sure you do understand what being brought up here.Thanks for the suggestion, but it’s perfectly irrelevant to the present discussion. You chose to make his ideas your own. If you can’t defend them, why adopt them? If you can defend them, why not do so?
Epithets are usually more effective when the person uttering them actually has a good reason for uttering them.So why hide behind him? Why not tell me why you hold to this odd, radically individualistic, uniquely modern and fundamentally Protestant approach? (Or rather, let’s have a discussion about why I think all those epithets are justified!)
And when have I denied that?Sigh. That is not the issue. The issue is that we as Anglicans do have elements of the Catholic Faith. Your Church admits this explicitly.
Right, and I’ve been giving you ample time to discuss some of the ways Anglicans express and articulate the Faith, ways that are not found (or not found in the same quality and quantity) within the Catholic Church as currently articulated.Furthermore–and this is clearly what Pope Benedict was talking about in 2005–some of the ways we express and articulate the Faith are ways that are not found, or not found in the same quality and quantity, within the Roman Communion as currently articulated. This is what the ecumenists and hierarchs of your Church recognize. But zealous conservative Catholic laypeople can’t get their heads around the idea, it appears.
Perhaps you need to define “conditional ordination” more clearly. As a man who has been Catholic all his life I’ve personally never even heard of this phrase before (at least not defined explicitly in detail).That’s not what I’m talking about. I have said over and over that any reunion would involve conditional ordination. I don’t understand why this is not getting across.
Because sometimes when you type it reads to me as if you think this were not the case or that this part can simply be overlooked. It can’t. And if you’re not intending to sound this way then you need to be more precise in what you are claiming.I don’t see why you think this is a matter of debate.
Again, I think you really need to re-examine what’d being claimed.I never said that. My point is that the Anglican tradition as a whole does derive from the pre-Reformation Catholic Church (as do all branches of Protestantism, even the Anabaptists). And again, this is not controversial in the eyes of your Pope and bishops. Therefore, Mr. Keating’s denial of the applicability of the word “return” is downright silly.
And yet we are deeply separated. I’m sorry Edwin but all the different denominations of Christianity are about as united in Christ as the poor concubine cut to pieces in Judges 20:6 is whole. This isn’t to say that God can’t work through painful divisions. But there are really deep divisions going on within denominations.Since Jesus Christ poured out His Precious Blood on the Cross to bring us into one Body.
But we can be moved individually into one collective motion of Holy Spirit. And within this framework each individual person can most certainly choose to resist the Divine motion of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity too.He didn’t do that. You can’t do that as an individual.
Has the pope ever spoken about encountering Christ on an individual personal level?He was clearly speaking about communities, not individuals.
You are, again, so deeply influenced by American individualism that you can’t see things any other way (as is your great authority Mr. Keating).
And this is the part that I’m trying to get through to you. There will eventually be some Anglican Communions reuniting with the Catholic Church no doubt. But any hope that all bodies of the entire Anglican Communion will be reunited is most certainly going to be dashed right against the rocks someday.I do not expect the entire Anglican Communion to be reunited with the Catholic Church, at least not for a very long time.
Perhaps it’s not as easy as you think it should be. There’s been some pretty good minds on both the Anglican side and the Catholic side of this discussion as they were moved by the Holy Spirit toward this goal. Unity has most certainly not been attained yet.What I would like to see is for the Catholic Church to make an explicit and public statement, based on the results of the ARCIC dialogs, as to the precise grounds on which Anglicans may reunite with the Roman Communion. Then we’d know where we stand. I’m frustrated by the endless diplomacy myself.
CameronEdwin
I may be mistaken, but maybe it’s analogous to the baptism you get when you aren’t sure you have been validly baptized: “If thou be not baptized, I baptize thee…”Perhaps you need to define “conditional ordination” more clearly. As a man who has been Catholic all his life I’ve personally never even heard of this phrase before (at least not defined explicitly in detail).
You are correct. It’s ordination “sub conditione”, in Latin, and has been applied to at least 2 well-known Anglican priests who converted and wished to receive Roman orders. One was Graham Leonard, one time Anglican Bishop of London.I may be mistaken, but maybe it’s analogous to the baptism you get when you aren’t sure you have been validly baptized: “If thou be not baptized, I baptize thee…”
It’s sort of a “not saying you are, not saying you aren’t, why look for trouble?”
Right.I may be mistaken, but maybe it’s analogous to the baptism you get when you aren’t sure you have been validly baptized: “If thou be not baptized, I baptize thee…”
It’s sort of a “not saying you are, not saying you aren’t, why look for trouble?”
Obviously he didn’t. He wasn’t talking specifically about Anglicans.Good. Then give an clear example of an explicitly Anglican theology that he referenced.
Suppose you tell me what I am missing? Telling someone to “reread” is a cop-out. It means that you either can’t explain why the person is wrong or don’t want to take the trouble. It doesn’t advance the discussion at all.I think you need to actually read what’s been offered.
Exactly. So just how do we disagree?This is, in the end, what’s ultimately on the table…
I have done so numerous times, both on this thread and elsewhere. But it is really not my place to do so. I am not speaking for the Anglican Communion. My views as to how reconciliation can be effected are no doubt deeply flawed. The point I’m arguing for here is that such reconciliation needs to take place on a communal level. The entire tradition of Anglicanism needs to be evaluated by the Catholic Church, and Anglicans also need to discern in the light of the historic Faith just what in our tradition needs to be discarded.Good. Now offer some actual suggestions for concessions on either side
What I have said clearly and explicitly a number of times: that ecumenical dialogue is about our mutual discernment of the common Faith that we have in Christ and have inherited from the Apostles. You come to the table with a dogmatic belief in infallibility and a claim that the Catholic Church subsists within your Communion; we have no such belief and make no such claim. That gives Anglican-Catholic dialogue (or generally Protestant-Catholic dialogue) an advantage that Catholic-Orthodox dialogue does not have, in spite of the greater issues at stake. We can admit that we are wrong. We should use that advantage instead of insisting that we must approach the dialogue as equal partners.Then what exactly are you suggesting Edwin?
Please be sure that you understand what I’m objecting to before accusing me of jumping to conclusions: Hint: what I have actually said I object to is usually a good clue.Please be sure to actually read what’s being said before jumping to conclusions if you do take this route.
If you aren’t denying that, what do you think you are disagreeing with? We seem to be talking past each other.And when have I denied that?
We’d have to start a separate thread for each of them. One example I haven’t mentioned above is the very Eucharistic prayer that was rejected in the Book of Divine Worship. Our current 1979 liturgy is based on Cranmer but has watered down Cranmer’s Protestantism considerably. One of our prayers is very close to one of your post-Vatican-II prayers. I would like to see a definitive ruling by the Catholic Church (informed by careful dialogue and explanation on our part) as to which of our prayers are theologically wrong and how. Because frankly I think that our prayers A, B, and D (in Rite II) better express the fullness of the Catholic Faith than any of your Eucharistic prayers except Prayer IV. (Admittedly this is based primarily on having heard them used in English-language Masses and not on a careful study of any of them in the Latin except for Prayer I.) One often hears traditionally minded Catholics (even leaving aside those who prefer the Old Mass) arguing that Prayer I (the historic Roman Canon) should be the prayer of choice, or even the only one used. The Roman Canon does not express the liturgical and Eucharistic piety in which I have been formed, and I believe that this piety is an orthodox expression of the historic Catholic Faith. While I believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, I think there are good reasons for preferring a tradition of Eucharistic prayer that places sacrificial language within the narrative of God’s saving acts. Thus, a reunion of Anglicans with Rome would lead to the existence within your Communion of Western Christians for whom the Roman Canon is not the primary and preferred expression of Eucharistic and liturgical piety (though of course we would have to accept it as fully orthodox). If Eucharistic Prayer A was rejected as being incompatible with Catholic doctrine (I don’t think it is, but Rome might rule otherwise), I would hope that prayer D and perhaps prayer B would find more favor. (I for one could allow the rather wacky prayer C to drop without much regret, although I don’t think it’s actually unorthodox.)Right, and I’ve been giving you ample time to discuss some of the ways Anglicans express and articulate the Faith, ways that are not found (or not found in the same quality and quantity) within the Catholic Church as currently articulated.
As Ghoti and GKC said, it’s analogous to conditional baptism, which uses the formula “if you have not already been baptized” (I don’t know the precise formula used in conditional ordination, but I’d think it would be similar). In other words, it doesn’t require Anglican priests to say that they have been laymen all along, and it doesn’t require Catholics to accept Anglican orders.Perhaps you need to define “conditional ordination” more clearly. As a man who has been Catholic all his life I’ve personally never even heard of this phrase before (at least not defined explicitly in detail).
Perhaps you could point to what I am writing that is giving you this unfortunate impression. Because to me it looks as if you are simply jumping to conclusions based on your preconceptions about Anglicanism and ecumenism. I may of course be wrong. But if I am expressing myself badly, you need to point to specific things that are giving the wrong impression.Because sometimes when you type it reads to me as if you think this were not the case or that this part can simply be overlooked. It can’t. And if you’re not intending to sound this way then you need to be more precise in what you are claiming.
I cannot think of anything I have said that could reasonably give anyone that impression. In fact, I think I recall saying explicitly that it was difficult but worthwhile.You seem to be saying that this reconciliation should be easy.
Because it’s not my job. That’s precisely why it needs to be communal–because there needs to be communal discernment on this point, not just one smart-aleck sounding off on a discussion forum. I’m happy to sound off, as anyone who hangs out here knows. But there’s a Catch-22–if I give you specifics, you will be able to say “but these specifics aren’t reasonable.” Exactly. That is what discussion is all about. What’s important is who is doing the discussing. You and I can discuss till the cows come home and it won’t mean much. What we need is for the bishops on each side to sit down with each other and thrash things out. As long as it’s just me spouting off you can dismiss what I say, and as long as it’s just you I can dismiss what you say.Yet you yourself can’t seem to articulate what exactly needs to be done in order for this reconciliation to be accomplished.
Again, I fail to see what I have said that has given you the strange impression that I don’t know this.And yet we are deeply separated. I’m sorry Edwin but all the different denominations of Christianity are about as united in Christ as the poor concubine cut to pieces in Judges 20:6 is whole. This isn’t to say that God can’t work through painful divisions. But there are really deep divisions going on within denominations.
Certainly we can resist individually. I don’t know what being “moved individually into one collective motion” might mean. What I do know is that the conversion stories one hears on this thread are fundamentally and typically American Protestant stories, with only the ending different.But we can be moved individually into one collective motion of Holy Spirit. And within this framework each individual person can most certainly choose to resist the Divine motion of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity too.
3. I think it’s actually Protestantism that been caught up in the errors of Individualism, far more caught up in it than Catholicism ever was. In fact, I’d say it was Protestantism which seriously influenced the earliest stages of American individualism too—so I’m not sure where you’re going with this one.
And this is the part that I’m trying to get through to you. There will eventually be some Anglican Communions reuniting with the Catholic Church no doubt. But any hope that all bodies of the entire Anglican Communion will be reunited is most certainly going to be dashed right against the rocks someday.
It could happen a very long time down the road. For instance, it might be that those Anglican bodies that do not reunite will disappear. Or that Christians as a whole will become a persecuted minority, and it will become obvious to all Anglicans that the only Christian body worth belonging to under those circumstances is the Roman Communion.Do you really believe this could happen? Seriously?
I don’t see a unified “Anglican Church” going anywhere. I think the most likely outcome is the formation of a fairly small, elite liberal Anglican body, a larger (at least in the long term and on a worldwide scale) conservative Anglican body dominated by evangelicalism but allowing for a fairly broad range of opinion within the spectrum of “mere Christianity” (C. S. Lewis will probably be the patron saint of this wing!), and a plethora of small, hardline Anglo-Catholic “continuing churches” (sorry GKC!) continuing to do their own thing, with a few of them occasionally uniting with Rome or Constantinople.Take a good look at what’s happening within the Anglican Church and tell me where you see the Anglican Church going.
That is a rather confusing sentence. I’m not sure I think it should be easy, and I certainly don’t think it will be easy. Probably I think it’s not going to be as easy as it should be, but I’m not really interested in figuring out how easy I think it should be, so I have to express profound lack of interest in the sentence as a whole!Perhaps it’s not as easy as you think it should be.
You give hardliners a good name!“…and a plethora of small, hardline Anglo-Catholic “continuing churches” (sorry GKC!) continuing to do their own thing, with a few of them occasionally uniting with Rome or Constantinople.”
S’awright.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus, hardline. sort of.
But he must have been addressing Anglicans as one of the larger communities that he was referring to, including groups like Lutherans. I’m not aware of any major Presbyterian-Catholic dialogues transpiring on the same scale as Catholic-Anglican or Catholic-Lutheran or Catholic-Orthodox dialogues for example.Obviously he didn’t. He wasn’t talking specifically about Anglicans.
For the record, I am disappointed that the ARCIC was not more successful. But I do believe this is a set back though. I suspect that more conservative Anglican bodies will eventually disengage with the main body some time in the future, mostly as a response to the apostasies of other liberal Anglicans who are currently wasting the precious Catholic resources available in their denomination at an alarming rate. But I think this will be a minority as God draws them out to fill the ranks of Catholics who have fallen away. Conversions to the Catholic faith from other denominations usually tend to bring a greater renewal within the Catholic Church in my opinion.Discerning what Anglicans may have that is of value is the job of ecumenical Anglican-Catholic discussion. This part of the thread started when Catholic poster rejoiced in the demise of ARCIC and said that the Holy Spirit obviously didn’t approve of such discussions. You cite one of the ARCIC discussions below, so you’re clearly familiar with them. Perhaps you do not share the other poster’s opinion that the Holy Spirit disapproves of such discussions. If you do not, then perhaps you should re-examine whether you have not been hastily jumping to conclusions as to just what I’m arguing for.
Keating’s article is a long one and, at the time of typing my previous message, I honestly didn’t think you actually read all the way through yet. When someone asks you to read something and you haven’t actually done that, I don’t think it’s a cop out to demand the person to read it to make sure they understand what’s on the table.Suppose you tell me what I am missing? Telling someone to “reread” is a cop-out. It means that you either can’t explain why the person is wrong or don’t want to take the trouble. It doesn’t advance the discussion at all.
Perhaps so. Let’s see where this goes.And you may misunderstand my objections to Mr. Keating’s piece.
But he did allow for that, which is why I’m now asking you to read it once again. After reading your answers I still don’t think you’ve read all the way through it yet.I agree entirely that the Pope was talking about theological variances within a set of agreed doctrinal parameters. My problem with Keating was his apparent blindness to the communal aspect of reconciliation–that not just individuals but whole traditions need to be reconciled with the See of Rome.
Exactly. So just how do we disagree?
Let’s keep reading through and see.Edwin
Then list some of these suggestions in point form below. That way we can take it to another level instead of throwing epithets at each other.I have done so numerous times, both on this thread and elsewhere. But it is really not my place to do so. I am not speaking for the Anglican Communion. My views as to how reconciliation can be effected are no doubt deeply flawed. The point I’m arguing for here is that such reconciliation needs to take place on a communal level. The entire tradition of Anglicanism needs to be evaluated by the Catholic Church, and Anglicans also need to discern in the light of the historic Faith just what in our tradition needs to be discarded.
I think the Catholic Church has some times been a victim of Italian nationalism. I’m very glad the last two Pope were (and is) Polish and German respectively.One obvious thing that we need to discard is the national-church ecclesiology we adopted at the Reformation. It’s abominable idolatry.
I think the Eastern Rite might set a good trend in this matter. Also, converts usually are allowed to retain their marriage, such as Richard Bradford at the St. Theresa of Avila parish outside Boston. He’s a husband and father of three. This too is a good article.One obvious thing that we would like to retain would be a married priesthood, though I would expect that we’d have to agree not to allow priests to marry after ordination, and our chances for retaining married bishops are probably not very good.
Now is this a part of Anglicanism? Or is this a part of the Early Church?But these are the discussions we need to have. If I were involved in official discussions, I’d try to make the case for the female diaconate. But again, I’m not too optimistic that we’d succeed. (It’s clear that the female priesthood is a no-go in terms of reunion.)
My point is that if you convert to the Catholic faith you would be entering it for the first time.I don’t know why you are trying to suggest that I’m slow to make specific suggestions. I make them all the time. But this is really not the point–any of my specific suggestions may be sheer nonsense without the general point I’m arguing being wrong.
Actually, ecumenism is a lot more than that. I’ll come back to this.What I have said clearly and explicitly a number of times: that ecumenical dialogue is about our mutual discernment of the common Faith that we have in Christ and have inherited from the Apostles.
I think before one even discusses the question of equality one should rather examine oneself in regards to Christ’s divinity. I’ll come back to this too.You come to the table with a dogmatic belief in infallibility and a claim that the Catholic Church subsists within your Communion; we have no such belief and make no such claim. That gives Anglican-Catholic dialogue (or generally Protestant-Catholic dialogue) an advantage that Catholic-Orthodox dialogue does not have, in spite of the greater issues at stake. We can admit that we are wrong. We should use that advantage instead of insisting that we must approach the dialogue as equal partners.
Do you want to have a point form list of what ecumenism actually consists of, and how it differs from inter-religious dialogue?Please be sure that you understand what I’m objecting to before accusing me of jumping to conclusions: Hint: what I have actually said I object to is usually a good clue.
In some ways I think we are talking past each other. It does happen on the internet sometimes.If you aren’t denying that, what do you think you are disagreeing with? We seem to be talking past each other.
This is the sort of discussion that needs to take place. This is the sort of discussion that is completely short-circuited if Anglicans simply convert as individuals.
Not necessarily. Before we talk about ecumenical dialogue let’s actually talk about what ecumenism actually is.Edwin
As I said in another thread, I left the Roman Church because I felt it retained spurious doctrines, including the prohibition of female clergy.What’s going on in the Anglican Communion, especially in the Episcopal church, proves beyond all doubt their theology is just a pile of rubble.
The Episcopal Candy bar analogy comes to mind.
C. S. Lewis had a few things to say about this topic. Another article can be found here.As I said in another thread, I left the Roman Church because I felt it retained spurious doctrines, including the prohibition of female clergy.
Why is it SOOOO horrible for women to serve God through the Priesthood?
And C. S. Leiws was right.C. S. Lewis had a few things to say about this topic. Another article can be found here.
Right there is the main idea- we are ALL insufficient in the eyes of God, regardless of gender. NO ONE is holy enough to properly serve God 100%, regardless of gender.It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the privilege, or the burden, which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him.