The Vatican Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity issued a Statement Tuesday regarding recent events within the Anglican Communion. The Council is headed by Cardinal Walter Kasper. The statement reads: “We have regretfully learned of the Church of England vote to pave the way for the introduction of legislation which will lead to the ordaining of women to the Episcopacy. The Catholic position on the issue was clearly expressed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Such a decision signifies a breaking away from the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the Churches since the first millennium, and therefore is a further obstacle for the reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England. This decision will have consequences on the future of dialogue, which had up until now born fruit, as Cardinal Kasper had clearly explained when he spoke on June 5 2006 to all of the bishops of the Church of England at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Cardinal has been invited once again to express the Catholic position at the next Lambeth Conference at the end of July”.It is somewhat difficult to hear that this is "a further obstacle" to unity, and that this will have negative consequences for a dialogue between our communions "which had up until now born fruit." The most productive fruit of Anglican - Roman Catholic dialogue - of the Vatican II era - was the 1971 Windsor Statement, which declared that our two communions had achieved substantial agreement in our theology of the Eucharist.
But, indeed, over the past decade, one figure within the Vatican, who is now the Pope himself, has contributed a number of obstacles to fruitful dialogue. Consider the following:
- in 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) reaffirmed the 1896 papal bull of Leo XIII (Apostolicae Curae), which declared ALL Anglican clerical orders (deacon, priest, bishop) to be "absolutely null and utterly void."
- in 2000, the declaration Dominus Iesus (authored by now Pope Benedict XVI) said that Anglicans belonged to defective non-Churches, being rather merely 'ecclesial communities.'
- in 2003, now Pope Benedict XVI wrote the following words of encouragement to the leaders of what would become the most effective schismatic movement in Anglicanism in our history: "I hasten to assure you of my heartfelt prayers for all those taking part in this convocation. The significance of your meeting is sensed far beyond Plano, and even in this city from which Saint Augustine of Canterbury was sent to confirm and strengthen the preaching of Christ's Gospel in England."
- And just this past week, the Sunday Telegraph reports that the Vatican has been holding secret meetings with a number of Church of England bishops to "build closer ties with the Roman Catholic Church." The Telegraph reported that the Archbishop of Canterbury was not informed by the Vatican or his own participating bishops of the meeting.
8 comments:
Things have not changed (nor, really, did I expect them to) since John Paul II spoke to the World Council of Churches in 1980 or thereabouts. As I recall, he spoke about the importance of, and the interest of the Roman Church in ecumenical dialogue. "And," he said, more or less, "whenever you're ready to come home, we'll be ready to receive you."
Re: the Vatican's displeasure
I've read quite a number of people complaining that this will destroy hopes of "reunion with Rome." Um, why's that necessarily a bad thing? Oh sure, there's a lot about the RCC that I admire, and oddly enough, I actually like the current pope despite disagreeing with a lot of his theological positions. Heck, I'm even getting my Ph.D. in liturgy at Catholic University in DC.
However, call me Protestant (*shudder*), but communion WITH Rome, yes; communion UNDER Rome, never.
Furthermore, then Cardinal Ratzinger declared the re-afirmation of Leo XIII's bull as having the force of an infallible pronouncement (a statement an RC priest I know called "silly"). Why would they even bother to say anything about women bishops now, unless they are holding out something to recalitrant Anglo-Catholic clergy in the C of E to "come home."
I came to adulthood and went to seminary during the Second Vatican Council. Halcyon days! We honestly thought that we would see the reunion of at least Western Catholic Christendom in our lifetime! (And yet there are some who say Satan does not really exist!) I am all in favor of working together as closely as possible with neighboring Roman Catholic parishes. I am all in favor of warm and cooperative relations between our bishops and their Roman Catholic counterparts. But "Rome and Canterbury"? Not so much. (Where shall I begin....?)
Where does Rome get off poking around in our affairs? (Oops. I guess we're not too shy about poking around in their affairs. Never mind!)
The (Anglican) opponents of the ordination of women seem to take the line that this is not a step that can be taken without the consent of the Universal Church. That sounds like code for "until Rome tells us we can." I was greatly distressed to discover that the Statute of Praemunire was repealed in 1967.
Hmmm...I am constantly amazed by Episcopalians who think that ecumenical "dialogue" means affirming whatever the Episcopal church does! Rome will be Rome -- and proper dialogue means that Rome speaks honestly about what it understands to be the truth. The fact that such statements might not tickle the ears of the more liberal elements of the Episcopal church is sad news -- but there's nothing wrong about it. Lies are wrong. The Episcopal church will be what it is, and the Roman Catholic Church will be what it is -- and there should be respectful communications between the two. But the simple fact is, the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church does not allow for it to view the Episcopal church as an equal insitution. That's clear from the Vatican Council II documents' statements on the nature of the Church. As far as Anglican orders goes -- Anglicanism has a different understanding of priesthood than Catholicism does. For Catholicism to acknowledge this point and simply say "what you call a priest isn't what we call a priest" is no offense -- it's simply truth telling. It may be painful, but it isn't offensive.
Yeah but the attitude from Rome always seems to be that "reconciliation" between Anglicanism and the RCC ultimately means Anglicanism falling back in line with the Pope. It's astoundingly condescending.
True, but it follows from the theological commitments required by magisterial Roman Catholic Church. Complaining about it simply isn't productive.
I think that part of the problem here is that when we come to theological dialogue, we (and by we I mean everybody involved) are looking for some kind of validation from the other party. I don't think that this is productive past a kind of general "we're all Christians" kine of level. If we really want to understand each other, we have to let go of our desire for validation in order to speak honestly and forthrightly with each other. This means hard words. It also means a presumption of good faith on the part of the participants -- that, for example, when the Roman Catholic Church insists that it alone possesses the fulness of the Church, it isn't trying to offend or condescend, but to tell its understanding of the truth.
I think that this gives the lie to Apostolicae Curae. If they really thought that Anglican orders were totally null and void, they wouldn't care who we consecrated as Bishops.
Post a Comment