Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, which is the truest Church of all?
* A note - I've just read an article at The Tablet on the subject discussed below - Churches, proper and otherwise by Catholic theologian Nicholas Lash ... it's well worth a look (hat tip to Jeff).
Yes, I'm back to discussing the CDF document "Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church" (I discussed it earlier here) ... the one which seems to say that the Orthodox Church is wounded and the Protestant Churches are only communities, because On Faith has asked a question about that subject, and I'd like to post one of the answers.
Here's the question ... How does the Pope's reiteration that the church of Christ exists fully only in the Catholic Church strike you? How will this affect ecumenical relations? Does anyone care? There are responses from some interesting people, including Tom Reese SJ, Dominic Crossan, and NT Wright. I know pretty much the Catholic position, which is expressed by Reese and, in a different way:-) by Crossan, but I think it's only fair to give some exposure to the Protestant view, of which I know less. So here's what NT Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham and New Testament scholar, had to say in answer to the above question ...
*************************************************
A Caste System for Christians
The Pope's reaffirmation is simply another statement of what has always been the RC position -- at least for the last century or more.
(In what follows, I speak, naturally, from the Anglican position.)
On the one hand, there have been striking ecumenical advances -- Pope John's giving of his ring to Archbishop Michael Ramsey being a highlight of deep symbolic import. But these haven't been matched, on the other hand, by any real advance in terms of official recognition of Anglican orders and hence of Anglican Eucharists. There is an inconsistency here in that RCs do recognize Anglican (and indeed Methodist, Baptist etc.) baptisms as valid providing they are trinitarian; so if our baptisms are valid, why not our Eucharists? Is that an Achilles heel in Rome's 'fixed' position?
This is all particularly ironic in England because every year or two some RC commentator (or indeed some secularist) will bang on about how wicked it is to have the Act of Succession (according to which the heir to the throne may not marry an RC, and may not become RC on pain of forfeiting the succession) still on the statute books 'in this day and age', etc etc -- while choosing not to notice that it is still mandatory for RCs in mixed marriages to bring up children as RCs. In other words, if (say) Prince WIlliam were to marry an RC, children (including his heir) would be brought up as RCs. I fully appreciate that this whole nest of questions must seem arcane and perhaps even ridiculous to cheerfully republican Americans, but it matters to a lot of English people.
More ironic in worldwide terms is the 'logic' (as in the document Dominus Jesus of four or five years ago) whereby the Eastern Orthodox churches are allowed the status of 'church' -- because, so Ratzinger claimed in that previous document, 'they objectively intend reunion with the See of Peter'. In other words, they don't 'subjectively' intend it -- ask any Orthodox theologian and you'll see! -- but the Romans somehow 'know' that, despite their subjective self-awareness, there is a reality -- rather like the 'substance' in 'transubstantiation' -- in which, though they are themselves unaware of the fact, they 'objectively' are always trying to reunite with Rome.
This is, I'm afraid, a classic case of an institution painting itself into a corner and being officially unable to find its way out. Happily, there are thousands, perhaps millions, of RCs who cheerfully ignore all this and establish excellent relationships at all levels -- including eucharistic hospitality -- with Anglicans and many other denominations. That's what we have to work on. No doubt there are 'in-house' reasons why Benedict has chosen this moment to remind us Anglicans and others that we remain second-class citizens. I don't think it makes any real difference to any of the real issues that actually face us right now.
*******************************************
Yes, I'm back to discussing the CDF document "Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church" (I discussed it earlier here) ... the one which seems to say that the Orthodox Church is wounded and the Protestant Churches are only communities, because On Faith has asked a question about that subject, and I'd like to post one of the answers.
Here's the question ... How does the Pope's reiteration that the church of Christ exists fully only in the Catholic Church strike you? How will this affect ecumenical relations? Does anyone care? There are responses from some interesting people, including Tom Reese SJ, Dominic Crossan, and NT Wright. I know pretty much the Catholic position, which is expressed by Reese and, in a different way:-) by Crossan, but I think it's only fair to give some exposure to the Protestant view, of which I know less. So here's what NT Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham and New Testament scholar, had to say in answer to the above question ...
*************************************************
A Caste System for Christians
The Pope's reaffirmation is simply another statement of what has always been the RC position -- at least for the last century or more.
(In what follows, I speak, naturally, from the Anglican position.)
On the one hand, there have been striking ecumenical advances -- Pope John's giving of his ring to Archbishop Michael Ramsey being a highlight of deep symbolic import. But these haven't been matched, on the other hand, by any real advance in terms of official recognition of Anglican orders and hence of Anglican Eucharists. There is an inconsistency here in that RCs do recognize Anglican (and indeed Methodist, Baptist etc.) baptisms as valid providing they are trinitarian; so if our baptisms are valid, why not our Eucharists? Is that an Achilles heel in Rome's 'fixed' position?
This is all particularly ironic in England because every year or two some RC commentator (or indeed some secularist) will bang on about how wicked it is to have the Act of Succession (according to which the heir to the throne may not marry an RC, and may not become RC on pain of forfeiting the succession) still on the statute books 'in this day and age', etc etc -- while choosing not to notice that it is still mandatory for RCs in mixed marriages to bring up children as RCs. In other words, if (say) Prince WIlliam were to marry an RC, children (including his heir) would be brought up as RCs. I fully appreciate that this whole nest of questions must seem arcane and perhaps even ridiculous to cheerfully republican Americans, but it matters to a lot of English people.
More ironic in worldwide terms is the 'logic' (as in the document Dominus Jesus of four or five years ago) whereby the Eastern Orthodox churches are allowed the status of 'church' -- because, so Ratzinger claimed in that previous document, 'they objectively intend reunion with the See of Peter'. In other words, they don't 'subjectively' intend it -- ask any Orthodox theologian and you'll see! -- but the Romans somehow 'know' that, despite their subjective self-awareness, there is a reality -- rather like the 'substance' in 'transubstantiation' -- in which, though they are themselves unaware of the fact, they 'objectively' are always trying to reunite with Rome.
This is, I'm afraid, a classic case of an institution painting itself into a corner and being officially unable to find its way out. Happily, there are thousands, perhaps millions, of RCs who cheerfully ignore all this and establish excellent relationships at all levels -- including eucharistic hospitality -- with Anglicans and many other denominations. That's what we have to work on. No doubt there are 'in-house' reasons why Benedict has chosen this moment to remind us Anglicans and others that we remain second-class citizens. I don't think it makes any real difference to any of the real issues that actually face us right now.
*******************************************
posted by crystal | 11:26 AM
14 Comments:
I think he hits it on the head with the "cheerfully ignore" part. Most Catholics are not willing to walk away from the ylast 40= years of work they have put into developing closer relations with other Christians.
One thing I find odd about his answer though is the reference to recognition of Orders. The Catholic Church in fact does recognize Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran orders. We have in North America a number of married and active priests who once belonged to these Churches (and I have no problem still using the term) and have converted to Catholicism. Their Ordinations are recognized as valid and they (while remaining married and often with children) continue to exercise their priestly and sacramental vocation as pastors of parishes in the same capacity as those who were ordained Roman Catholic from the start.
The way I see it, the ecumenical cat was let out of the bag some time ago and as much as Rome may like to stuff it back in, the real Church of the People of God which 'subsists' in it's entirety in the baptized Body of Christ are the ones who will have the final say.
A counter question might be "Are we going to let this reiteration of Benedict's position adversely affect our relations with other Christians?"
I, for one, am not.
Hi Cura,
Some of the Protestant sites I visit, not blogs but magazines, have mentioned the subject and have been pretty upset, but otheres haven't even brought it up. I have some Protestant and Orthodox blogging friends - I wonder what they must think about this. The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable.
Good points Cura.
Crystal,
Did you happen to read Nicholas Lash in The Tablet this week?
Jeff - thanks for pointing out that article in the Tablet. I"ve been interested in Lash and had thought of writing about him one day. I'm going to amend this post and add a link to the article, thanks to you :-)
BTW - Cura and Jeff,
In the Tablet article it says ...
By way of conclusion, a word on Anglican orders. What is the Catholic Church's view of their status? Here we confront a paradox. On the one hand, Leo XIII's encyclical Apostolicae Curae, of 1896, which denounced Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void", has never been repealed. It would seem to follow that there must be some sense - for all I know a "proper" sense - in which the Archbishop of Canterbury is, as one Roman Catholic bishop put it in a letter to The Times in, I think, 1951, a letter exhibiting a tact and generosity worthy of the CDF, a "doubtfully baptised layman".
... does that have to do with Cura's question about the Catholic acceptance of Protstant religious orders?
It would seem to suggest that the Church does not recognize the Apostolic succession of the Anglican communion but current and long-standing practice proves otherwise. This would be another example of Rome 'teaching' one thing and yet doing another. Rome has repeatedly shown absolutely no problem with the Orders of priests and Bishops who convert. I would say given this practice, our Mother Church's own Sacred Tradition has bitten it in the @$$ once again. hehehehe.
Just to add, while it has 'officially' not been repealed, the consistent practice of recognizing the Orders of these other Christian Brothers in faith as valid (valid enough to grant them full priestly function within the Roman Church) shows that in practice that line of thought indeed has been overthrown.
Cura :-)
I wonder if there's a difference between accepting them when they convert, and accepting them when they remain Protestant?
Just to clarify something, Anglican priests cannot become Catholic priests simply by converting to Catholicism. They have to be ordained in the Catholic Church. I know this because I once attended the Catholic ordination of a former Anglican priest. The difference is, they don't have to do the whole seminary thing again. So rather than say that the Catholic Church recognises the validity of Anglican orders (which it does not), it would be far more accurate to say it recognises, for the most part, the validity of Anglican seminary education.
I think the whole thing is rather silly, supposing as it does that Catholic priests are somehow ontologically different from the rest of us (which is what the whole matter of "valid ordinations" and "apostolic succession" implies).
PrickliestPear,
Thanks - that makes what Nicholas Lash wrote more understandable.
Someone told me that the Vatican II Council was of two minds - inward looking and outward looking - and that "subsists in" was a compromise between the two. Benedict seems to want to do away with a meant ambiguity, on the side of inward looking. I'd like to go in the other direction. Maybe the ambiguity isn't resolvable, though.
Crystal, that is one of the things that most struck me when I actually read (most of) the Vatican II documents in university: there is a noticeable tension between progressive and conservative voices in the texts. For the most part, from what I understand, they were first drafted with a much more progressive message, but weren't subjected to a vote until the conservative minority made some changes. So both sides can quote Vatican II documents to support their views, even when those views are opposed. It's very frustrating.
Yes, many have noted that tension. What happened was, the curial obstructionists would get creamed by the more progressive bishops during the council votes. Then the curial cardinals and bishops would rush privately to the pope and demand that he put in a prefatory note or footnote of some kind of another in order weaken the collegial manner in which the documents were crafted, and to protect some papal prerogative or another. In some cases, the pope would acquiesce. This is why the conservatives now can try to pass off this bogus argument of "there is no 'Spirit of the Council'. Stick to the texts".
Crystal,
Far be it from me to speak on behalf of Protestants, particularly the ones that you correspond with, but I don't think there's a lot of shock on their part over this. These actions over the past few weeks are not directed outward. They are for internal consumption. Benedict is trying, wrongly and dishonestly in my opinion, to reshape the interpretation of the council to suit his own liking. He is trying to "brand" Catholicism as something unique and totally different from everything else.
Fundamentalist Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christians anyway. They are far, far crueler and derogatory in what they say than Benedict ever could be. They merely say, "We told you so", and welcome the distinction in order to fuel the combat they love.
Even liberal Protestants, however, tend to see the papacy as an absurd institution, and have some serious theological problems with Catholicism in general. I'd say the general reaction I've seen in those quarters is, "Thank you Benedict, for reminding us again why we are Protestants."
But, as I said... I think Benedict's real targets and real audiences here are internal, not external.
Hi Jeff,
Argh! - everyone knows more about Vatican II than me :-)
It's true, none of the Protestant blogs I visit have even mentioned the document. Where I've seen the upset-ness has been other places ... Repeat after me: 'You are not a proper church.' - the TimesOnline blog, and Catholic Pride in 'One True Church' Makes Enemies, Says Coptic Pope, Christianity Today, for instance.
OOps - meant "Christian Today", not "Chritianity Today".
"...He is trying to "brand" Catholicism as something unique and totally different from everything else."
Isn't the Church founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago unique and totally different from everything else?
Post a Comment
<< Home