Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.
Yet all I see is “my tribe is better than your tribe,” and “my religion is better than your religion.” This doesn't contribute to understanding when we're talking Christian vs. Muslim, yet I'm seeing this kind of posturing between Christians. I know that I've contributed to this, so I need to be forgiven as well as to forgive.
My experience is that you can find good and bad in any sufficiently large group. Every religion can point to past glories, and their enemies can point to past outrages. I'd rather change the future than try to rewrite the past, but then, I've never been much for the easy way. Just his Way — in which we are one.
6 comments:
this was john XXIII's inspiration for calling the second vatican council into session...he referred to the scandal of christianity...the disunity the fractions the internal hatred...and said to the bishops there 'we are to blame as well'
pax benedictina
j
There is no doubt that the Second Vatican Council was a historical step in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and even Christianity more broadly. But the Second Vatican Council was closed in 1965. It seems to me that the ecumenical energy created by that council has since largely dissipated.
More recent declarations, e.g., that the Protestants and Orthodox "are not true churches," have not been helpful, and explanations after the fact have seemed to me to be unconvincing.
As a matter of policy, you would be welcome to partake in the Eucharist in my church - we invite all who believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the elements to participate. My experience of Catholic congregations has been inconsistent, to put it mildly.
To paraphrase 1st Corinthians 1:10ff: Do not say "I am for the Pope," or "I am for Luther," or "I am for Calvin," or "I am for the Ecumenical Patriarch." Say only, "I am for Christ!"
Consider also 1st Corinthians 11:17-22. We can only truly celebrate the Lord's supper if it is available to all.
Peace
the door of ecumenism is always open in rome
rowan williams in particular has been treading a deep path in that direction knocking on the door
the orthodox communion poses quite a different problem that the mainline protestant churches...the holy fathers' first diplomatic move was in the direction of the east...and he upholds the legitimacy and the invaluable witness of orthodox liturgy...the resistance seems to come from the other side
the protestant movement in the west must concede that the holy father has a righteous point...the elements of petrine succession eucharistic theology and the teaching tradition all stand as challenges for the ecclesial communities...rome won't compromise on any of that...and the classic katholicos understanding is the unity around those principles....we do a lot where i'm from to honor the scripture tradition and the music tradition that grew up in the various offshoot traditions...but they are various
the changes in protestant communities marked by adaptation to the changes of the modern world need to be assessed critically and not simply co-opted as the way things are...with the implied critique that rome is far behind the game in all this...the truth is not made less so by a lack of consensus
a pretty good catholic blog
https://mliccione.blogspot.com
hashes out the dilemmas with philosophical accuracy
it is impossible to lean on paul without somehow acknowledging the spirit of development and the effort to maintain focus within catholic thought...a parent who hasn't seen his child for 400 yrs may be welcoming but will feel pretty ill at ease until some real understanding has come about
it's not worth anyones' while or time to simply state we're all equally relevant
it does me no good to defend against the obvious resistances in the RC church...i can only say we try to remain -- katholicos
j
JH -- you raise some interesting points.
Let's take a few of the more significant issues, and explore them for a moment, OK?
1. Regarding succession. It happens that by a historical accident, most Lutheran pastors in the US can trace their succession, because the first missionaries to the US came to Scandinavia. As it happens, the Catholic bishops of Scandinavia preferred to hold onto their heads than their faith, back in the bad old days when Kings decided the faith of their people, and the Kings became Lutheran. To the extent that defects of succession remain, they're being dealt with (at least, as regards the ELCA) as a part of the sequelae of the establishment of full communion between the Episcopal Church and the ELCA.
A moral here is that the Protestant confessions differ significantly. Indeed, because the ELCA has gone further w.r.t. to establishing full communion than Lutheranism worldwide, a distinction may have to be made here too. A complication, of course, is that the ELCA is also in full communion with the Reformed Churches.
2. Eucharistic theology. Lutherans do not insist on transubstantiation, but there is no theological norm. We see transubstantiation as being consistent with, but not required by, scriptural witness. And Lutheranism tends towards a principal of minimal theological commitment (so we don't require believe beyond what we believe is necessary for salvation).
That said, most Lutherans tend towards consubstantiation, which I believe is reasonably compatible with Roman Catholic thought. We strongly affirm the notion that Jesus Christ is truly present in the elements of communion, and enumerate it as a sacrament (i.e., a means of grace, mandated by Christ), and therefore much more than a rite. Again, practice diverges considerably within Protestantism, and the Lutherans and Episcopalians look much more like the Catholics in this regard.
3. The teaching tradition. Here I would need to know better what it is that Catholicism feels that it must defend. I honestly don't know if there's an issue here.
In any event, I don't believe that these historical difficulties w.r.t. to Lutheran and Anglican confessions are any greater than those w.r.t. the Moravian (Hussite) Churches, where an accommodation has already been made. Of course, in the end, such questions of accommodation are above our pay grade, and it seems to me that you're constrained to defend Rome. I have a bit more flexibility, which I do not confuse with virtue.
Regarding adaptations to the modern world...
I think that the big issue here is that the ELCA does not require (or even particularly value) a celibate clergy, and we've decided that the spiritual gifts of women are such as to make them fit for pastoral ministry. I do not expect the Roman Catholic Church to follow our lead here, although I think it would be better served if it did. I'll note that the Eastern Churches do not insist on a celibate clergy, which should be proof enough (as if the historical record was not) that celibacy is a "recent" innovation. Indeed, 1st Corinthians 9:5 clearly refers to wives of the original apostles, so the scriptural record is at best ambiguous.
And I certainly accept the rich value of historical continuity embodied in the Roman Church, and its attempt at universality. That said, I think it is presumptuous of the Catholic Church to believe itself to be universal, in the presence of so much evidence to the contrary. There are other Christian bodies, and we have much to learn and gain from understanding one another's witness.
Good luck in your efforts with the East, but I don't expect much. If 400 years is too hard to bridge, it seems odd to be optimistic about 1600.
i suppose divorce and remarriage happens
but we can't deny the divorce
and we can't deny continual fracturing of the denominations
it is one thing to speak of commonality among the mainline protestants it is another thing to gather in the fervent souls who are too ignorant to understand how far they've gone astray
maybe we need to get rid of the label
protestant
just stop the protest why don't you
i often get the sense that the reasons are lost but the reactionism has become habitual
i firmly believe that the unity that is necessary will be around the eucharistic table...but the discussion about real presence is not something that is merely incidental
richard john neuhaus forged the most concise thinking in recent times about differences of spirit in the communions...the march of faith for catholics is an ascent as well as (assent) it is not a unilateral agreement
henri du lubac's "catholicism" is a short treatise on what can never be compromised
when i read words to the effect that our notion of universality is presumptuous it pretty well ends the discussion for it becomes clear that you and many others do not understand...the claim for universality is the very crux of the issue...the truths that are preached constantly are not negotiable...and insofar as they are true they must be true for all...truth cannot abide a local interpretation...the claim of christ's purpose must be accessible and meaningful for everyone or it is dubious for all
there may be some added hope in the notion of katholicos which honors truth beauty and goodness where ever it is perceived
the liturgical thinking in catholic circles is verging ever closer to eastern orthodox sentiments
that whole area of liturgiology is something most protestants eschew either consciously or -un
the teaching tradition to which i refer rests primarily on the work of thomas aquinas...so much has grown from that garden and it continues to be a place of intellectual fecundity...there would have to be at least a working appreciation of all that has been derived from thomas -
neuhaus seemed to be able to do that..as did newman
i've seen the attitude before -
we have an ecumenical institute on this campus...that attitude that states perhaps silently...our criticism of you is just as valid as your criticism of us...but it's not that
the imperative is really
are you willing to get on the mountain path and make the ascent (assent)
for most the challenge is away from the comfort zone
although neuhaus claimed he experienced nothing but profound certainty when he swam the tiber
i am adamant about the need to acknowledge the importance of humility around the table ( we have the freedom of intercommunion here) but i think it is a mistake to presume simply that it means the same thing to everyone...for me i can make no distinction about the eucharist i receive today...it is the same eucharist celebrated in rome...and i know it doesn't mean the same thing in any other denomination...i will never be able to receive in another denomination...my heart would not allow it...(except among the orthodox - yet their practice is constrained in terms of actually reception even amongst the faithful)...the doctrines de fide will not change much...but maybe with prayer hearts will change...we need more light
as for bridges
i think the structures are up we need to fix the planks
jh -- first things first.
I gave offense which I did not intend with my remark about presumption and universality. I hope to explain later without giving offense what I meant, but I think that an attempt to do so now would take away from what I really want to say, which is this:
I am sorry for having given offense. You have been nothing but generous with me. I hope our discussion can continue.
Post a Comment