Anglican “Alzheimer’s”
Vatican types often display a knack for language that can rankle friends as much as foes, with the latest example a speech by Rome’s ranking guest at the Anglican Lambeth Conference, Cardinal Ivan Dias of the Congregation for the Evangeliz(s)ation of Peoples. In his intervention yesterday, Cardinal Dias warned the Anglicans–who as we all likely know are struggling with internal divisions over homosexual bishops and women bishops, among other things–that they may be suffering from the ecclesial equivalent of Alzheimer’s and Parkinsons:
For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer’s. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson’s.
Many, no surprise, are not happy with the cardinal’s talk. (A friend sent it to me this morning, but I found it so soporific–the nature of such speeches, I guess–that I never got to the juicy bit near the end.) The Guardian has coverage, and The Times (of London)’s Ruth Gledhill leads with protests from Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s charities. Over at Crunchy Con, Rod Dreher rather likes the cardinal’s phrasing, but notes that “this same accusation is more or less what traditionalist Catholics say about the Second Vatican Council, and is also more or less the traditional Orthodox criticism of Roman actions leading up to the Great Schism.”
No doubt there will be cheers and jeers, depending on one’s point of view. But leaving aside the propriety of Dias’ analogy–the late pope himself suffered from a form of Parkinson’s that the Vatican would not even acknowledge–what of the point Dreher makes? One could argue, as reformers have throughout history, and as biblical exegetes can today, that Rome is a captive of a particular era, or several eras. Is that too not a form of presentism, or paralysis or forgetfulness? Historical consciousness is a tricky cudgel to wield. Then again, Dias is also invoking–I presume–heritage and tradition in the context of the Roman rather than the Reformation understanding. But reform is an inherent part of the Anglican heritage and tradition, so perhaps they are talking past each other.
on July 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Only a Vatican flunky could authoritatively comment on diseases of the brain.
on July 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I guess the underlying question really is, how do we think about the relationship between time and truth?
1. Are Early Christians “closer” in some sense to the true faith? Is time a game of telephone, where distance is likely to lead to distortion? (But then what of the holy spirit?)
2 Is there some sense of progress embedded in time –development of doctrine –the acorn grows into the oak it really is? Some V2 material in LG can lend itself to this reading. We grow more perfect in insight as time goes on. (But wouldn’t we “outgrow” just about everything?”
3. Is it a multi variable equation? . No society, no people is “closer” to God in an absolute sense, but different time periods reveal different aspects more fully and hide different aspects more ruthlessly. I’m not quite sure what this means, but it’s what I’m thinking about now.
on July 23rd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Cathleen,
The great Orestes Brownson comes to mind…specifically this quote:
“Now, unless you can render the human mind as infallible as the Divine mind, there will always be more or less of imperfection and error in our understanding and appropriation of the Christian idea, or the faith as objectively revealed and proposed. Hence theology is not a divine and infallible science; and while the faith in itself is complete and invariable, theology, or its scientific realization, is always incomplete and variable. It may grow from age to age, and the theology which is too high and too broad for one age may be too narrow and too low for another. Hence, any attempt to bind the human mind, thought, or reason back to the theology of any past age is hostile to the interests alike of religion and civilization. To require us to receive as authority not to be questioned or examined, not the faith, but the theology or philosophy of the mediaeval doctors, or even the great theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is to suppose that the work of realization is completed, and human reason in this life has no farther work, which were intellectual death or mental stagnation; or, which amounts to the same thing, that no farther realization is practicable or permissible in Christian truth.”
Explanations to Catholics
Brownson’s Quarterly Review, October, 1864
Art. IV. Some Explanations offered to our Catholic Readers (http://orestesbrownson.com/index.php?id=368)
on July 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I would hardly say that Diaz’s comments display a “knack for language.” They’re patently offensive and display a kind of shocking ignorance and insensitivity that I am sorry to see in anyone.
on July 24th, 2008 at 2:16 am
After the appalling intervention from the Sudanese Archbishop (who denied the existence of gays in a country where gay sex earns the death sentence and where teenagers perceived as gay are murdered by vigilantes) Diaz seemed refreshingly inoffensive. But I did not notice his nasty crack, surely highly offensive to those suffering from those illnesses, and to Anglicans if they see themselves as targeted by the remark.
on July 24th, 2008 at 5:44 am
MANY comments, pro and con, here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/07/23/anglicans_facing_spiritual_alzheimers_says_cardinal_at_lambeth
on July 24th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Cardinal Dias has had extensive experience as a diplomat for the Church–in Africa, Indonesia, and South Korea, for example–so one would expect that he is well-versed in the language of statesmanship. He also speaks at least 12 languages. Let’s hope his unfortunate choice of words is a rare aberration on his part.
on July 24th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Cathy Kaveny: Thanks for trying to set out more clearly what I may have been trying to get at in a rather muddle post. I try to avoid the Lambeth story because it is so complex and seems so simple, and because it’s not my tribe, I feel out of bounds commenting.
Two things: My reflex on all of these stories is an ever greater appreciation for Rowan Williams, who I think is really smart and a fine spiritual writer and a good man in an extremely difficult position. We should be lucky to have such men in our hierarchy.
I also note that Benedict was careful not to be seen as encouraging defections to Rome among disaffected bishops. There are rumors of hundreds thinking of taking the Tiber plunge. One wag opined that Dias’ speech was a brilliant strategy to discourage defections!
Finally, though I don’t think Dias intended it this way, could his warning shot not also be directed at the Southern Tier bishops who have boycotted and seem to be going off on their own? Much of the good commentary I’ve read (Frst Things has lots) rightly (I think) directs criticism at both the Gene Robinson wing and the Akinola wing.
In any case, the Anglican Communion is dealing in public with many things the Roman church will eventually face, or is facing, so one can only keep solidarity foremost.
on July 24th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Gee, I suffer from severe myopia. Should I be offended?
It seems to me that you hear analogies to illnesses all the time–usually to underscore how mortally dangerous a situation is. Alzheimers is a fatal disease of memory and brain function; Parkinson’s a loss of bodily control.
As I read him, Dias is simply saying the Anglican Communion has lost bodily control because it has lost its traditional memory; i.e., it’s dying because it is no longer Catholic. This may be true, though Dias seems to be exulting in the break-up of Anglicanism rather than providing some sort of leadership that might show Anglicans the way back.
The statement certainly shows a loss of memory Dias’ part in that the Roman Church lost a lot of bodily control during the Reformation, and that’s why we have Anglicans (and Lutherans, and Baptists and Presbyterians, etc.) in the first place.
At least that’s how it seems to me with my Universalist hat on this morning.
on July 24th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Alzheimner’s? Parkinsons?
Now myopis?
My take is that the Cardinal has his diseases mixed up – he meant he thought his audience had insomnia, so he tried to lure them to drowse.
Seriously, I think David Gibson’s comments are germane.
Under Rowan yesterday, over 600 Bishops marched with prime minister,Gordon Brown, to urge commitment to serious reduction of global poverty. Could we ever imagine such from the USCCB?
Sure the Archbishop of Canterbury has a long road to hoe, but he beieves in patience, dialogue, prayer and the Holy Spirit. I’m tempted to say can we ever imagibe such…?
I’m not sure the Sri Lankan bishop invited by Rowan to speak moved things along with his “cxricket” suggestion. On the other hand here, there have been times when I think the discussion might be heklped by a timeout for baseball, or even bringing back the walrus…
on July 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Jesus often referred to the “spiritually” blind as a symptom of disease.
on July 24th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
father O’Leary, “gay” is not a person, just as “blind” is not a person. “Gay” refers to a relationship that is not consistent with God’s intention for Sexual Love.
on July 24th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Nancy
“father O’Leary, “gay” is not a person, just as “blind” is not a person. “Gay” refers to a relationship that is not consistent with God’s intention for Sexual Love.”
We are living in a secular world,Nancy, not in a theocracy, so gay means gay person. Get used to.
on July 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Other than the “gay” relationships a “gay” person has, what exactly makes someone “gay” Mary?
on July 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
This is off topic. Feel free to move this “conversation” off the blog.
on July 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I second the moderator’s motion. Thank you.
on July 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
” In his intervention yesterday, Cardinal Dias warned the Anglicans-who as we all know are sruggling with internal divisions over homosexual bishops and women bishops, among other things”
If this is not one of the main issues, lets discuss the “other things”.
on July 24th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I think the Cardinal’s use of illness imagery is helpful insofar as it points out a difference between the Anglican and Catholic understandings of the meaning of the expression “body of Christ.” From the Cardinal’s p.o.v., there is a necessary continuity throughout the Church, now and through the centuries. While nuances to this view exist among Catholics, I still think it’s safe to say that the Catholic idea of the Church is always more universal than the Anglican.
Williams is fascinating. On the one hand, he’s a first-class patristics scholar. On the other hand, he seems haunted by the colonialist history of England and the very dubious morality of anything smacking of colonialism.
However, istm that colonialism is an import-export business. The import side is almost always robbery: the looting of an occupied country. The export side can be a kind of robbery, if there are forced conversions. But preaching the Gospel is not the same as forcing conversion. And neither is religious leadership.
I think Williams could be righteously more assertive.
on July 24th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
How different is Benedict from the lackeys he so cheerfully employs? A little more discreet, perhaps? At least of late.
on July 24th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The problem with the disease metaphors is that Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s are conditions you do not bring on yourself. And Alzheimer’s sufferers do not willfully disregard the past. They can’t remember no matter how much they want to. Limbs of Parkinson’s sufferers do not move involuntarily because they are disregarding the head. They are getting faulty signals from the brain.
It seems to me, also, that there are certain kinds of disease metaphors that are in questionable taste. Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s are bad but perhaps not the very worst (that would be something like Down Syndrome or breast cancer). If it’s hearbreaking and personal, it should be avoided.
on July 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Agreed: the disease metaphors are problematic.
But David, isn’t schism heartbreaking? And is it actually chosen for itself? It seems to me that there is usually simply something more highly valued than unity.
on July 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Kathy,
Yes, schism is heartbreaking, but it seems to me it’s more like divorce than any disease. This is not by any means an original thought, but isn’t the matter even more fundamental than women bishops and homosexual bishops? Of course, Christianity didn’t get where it is today by valuing unity above everything else!
on July 24th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The disease metaphors cause unnecessary distraction.
Kathy said: “I think Williams could be righteously more assertive.” I am curious to see what could happen if he showed assertion. Perhaps a bishop or two would respond, “Do you think you have infallibility or something?” I fear that even these schismatic bishops will meet such a fate someday as all power will shift to the vestries.
on July 24th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Fr. Shawn, the fact that ABC Williams has no papal authority is a key point; his unenviable job is to try to get people to the table and keep as many people AT the table as possible until some kind of theological resolution can be found. In finessing this situation, he strikes me as being admirably righteous.
I’ve brought up this point before, but I’ll throw it out again: To what degree will “schism” really matter in a practical sense among Anglicans, since Anglicans accept all baptized Christians at the Eucharist?
Further, there’s no injunction I know of against receiving communion from the clergy of another denomination, which is what women and/or gay priests would be if there were an Anglican schism.
What it boils down to is that many Anglicans would not WANT to receive from schismatic priests and would go elsewhere. Which is what most have already done anyway. You could argue that the schism has already occurred.
As David Gibson has noted before, the biggest wrangle will be over real estate; who owns the church property?
on July 24th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Jean, I agree with you in that it often comes down to the money. Such a shame.
Here’s a microcosm example of what you are saying: In very small Robbinsville, NC, an Episcopal-Lutheran fellowship developed over two decades ago (the first of its kind). How will the local congregation be affected if a real estate feud caused the fellowshop to be vacated from the premises?
The church is a very interesting model to say the least:
http://www.luther95.com/GMLEF-RNC/
The good news is that both bishops who oversee the church get along very well. I can only hope that such a relationship will continue because only one hammerhead in the proper chair needs to cause problems.
on July 24th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Ugh. I incorrectly spelled “fellowship” in my previous post.
on July 24th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Doees anyone doubt that Dias is saying what he thinks Benedict thinks and would say if he had not become more discreet?
on July 24th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Would it not be fair to state that a Church which has been willing to send people to hell by contemplating an extra marital sexual act should be very discreet when it comes to sexual matters? The same church trumps Humanae Vitae which is overwhelmingly discredited by at least three quarters of the Catholic community. Not to mention second marriages and the like.
On a crucial point, perhaps we can have a discussion about what unity entails. Why it always refers to doctrinal matters may be a matter of wonder. Especially when Jesus defined love of neighbor as taking care of our neighbor in the most tender way. Not that’s unity.
on July 24th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
“I’ve brought up this point before, but I’ll throw it out again: To what degree will “schism” really matter in a practical sense among Anglicans, since Anglicans accept all baptized Christians at the Eucharist? ”
Jean, you have captured something so important here. It is not the Church of Dogma which is so important but the Church of the Holy Spirit, which Cathy seems to be pointing out also. One of the most dramatic words Jesus uttered was “Eat my Body and Drink my Blood.” The real meaning of this is one partakes at the table with Jesus because one is of one mind with him in loving God and neighbor. The dogmatists have corrupted this to stress doctrinal matters to the point that we have created real nasty Christians over this issue (The Eucharist) where it is really the symbol of unity in which those who participate truly exemplify love of God and Neighbor. Instead the dogmatists have killed over the issue.
It is always orthopraxy over orthodoxy. Yet orthodoxy takes up most of our posts while orthopraxy is shelved to the background. Too simple it seems. But KISS (keep it simple stupid) is more valuable than complicated meanderings.
on July 25th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Bill (and all), I should probably add to the bit about the open Eucharist among Anglicans, that, while there is no injunction against “communing” with other denominations, Anglicans, like Catholics, do not see all communion as equal.
Anglicans require that it takes a properly ordained priest for communion to contain the Real Presence, and in the minds of many Anglicans worldwide, women and actively gay priests are not properly ordained, those Anglicans have gone to parishes that have whom they consider to be proper priests.
Hence my statement that schism has already occurred, and that some elements within Anglican want Lambeth to make it official.
However, I think Anglicans would say that the Holy Spirit isn’t something that lives in a jar to be opened only by a priest and so could be spiritually present in some way in all communions. If we attended the Congregational Church with a friend who was a minister there, we were free to take communion with his congregation. It wasn’t going to hurt us so long as we understood it wasn’t the same the Anglican eucharist.
Pope Benedict has said (I paraphrase to the point of distortion perhaps, so somebody can set me straight) that communion services which Protestants deem to be only commemorative is nice as far as it goes, but not to be confused with the Catholic eucharist, and Catholics are not to take such communions.
This strikes me as similar to the Anglican line. The Pope has not said that the Holy Spirit does not move in other denominations, or even through their communion.
The difference is that among Catholics there is a rule that they may not take “fake” communion, as the local Catholics here call it, and there is no such injunction for Anglicans.
OK, now my head hurts now.
on July 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
7-25-08 One of my Episcopalian friends was a bridesmaid in the wedding of her Roman Catholic sister. My High Church friend was not allowed to take Communion even though her beliefs about Communion seemed the same as mine. That was 50 years ago and I’m still a bit embarrassed about it. What it said to her was ‘No, you’re not as good as we are’. Rude.
There is reason for the prohibition, no doubt. But just what is it? I’m sure non-Catholics receive Communion all the time, some just out of curiosity. (I suspect that if I weren’t Catholic I’d find a nice isolated church where I wasn’t known, and voila!) There’s no loyalty oath required for any of us. And surely the Lord wouldn’t mind if the person is well-intentioned. So there must be some extrinsic reason, something independent of the act itself. What is it? Except for some possible kooks who would be disrespectful, what is it that is threatened? The kooks aren’t stopped anyway. Surely it can’t be a matter of ‘measuring up’ to the act. None of us can.
OK, so there is not the degree of unity with non-Catholics as among Catholics, but so what? The Church isn’t a club with restricted membership, is it?
on July 25th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Jean,
Above, Kathy gave a fairly good description of the Catholic Church as more universal. Your remarks reflect the Anglican view of how they are more universal. They do not see the One True Church as being “the Churches of the Anglican Communion”, but as inclusive of all the baptized.
That is the underlying thread here. Ordination is critical to unity, so variations in ordination practices affect how people view the church. If a schism has already happened, the pain of healing it should not be a surprise.
B16 remarks at the close of WYD address the important issues at Lambeth. Only the Holy Spirit brings unity. Our attempts to create unity in other ways are marred by our failings and fumblings, no matter how much they are needed. I would hope that his acceptance of human limitations and frailty within the structures of the Church will help the Anglicans. (Now, let us think about how we treat Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s patients. Do our efforts center on curing them or caring for them in their frailty?)
on July 25th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Always impressed with the depth and sophistication of this blog and the insights that follow. Allow me to contribut some other threads……1) if unity is the issue, how do you keep separate theological and pastoral practices while calling it a union? in some ways, Lambeth, I suspect, is having a discussion that the Roman Catholic Church will some day also have to have. One difference is that the Anglican tradition does not over identify or rely upon a papal magesterium….yet, the Roman Catholic Church has also faced significant issues resulting in the East-West divide, various rites, Orthodox split, the Reformation split. Is the tension so great that a church (big tent) can no longer keep everyone under the same roof? Are there basic beliefs that push one to the edge of schism?
Thought I would add some thoughts from Richard McBrien’s latest column on the 60th anniversary of the encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi….Shortcut to: http://129.74.72.9/rm/FMPro?-db=rm%5f&-format=record%5fdetail.htm&-lay=full&-sortfield=yyyy&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=mm&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=dd&-sortorder=descend&new%5fid=now&-max=15&-recid=34911&-find=
High points that may be relevant to this discussion:
a) “Mystici Corporis, however, represented the most significant shift in ecclesiology (the theological understanding of the nature and mission of the Church) since the Counter-Reformation of the late-16th and early-17th centuries.
For perhaps the first time in modern church history, a pope rooted his teaching on the Church in Scripture, especially the writings of St. Paul on the Church as the Body of Christ. The encyclical did qualify the expression with the non-Pauline adjective “mystical,” but only to distinguish the ecclesial Body of Christ from the Eucharist and from his earthly, risen, and glorified bodies.”
b) “To be sure, a revival of the theology of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ had begun already in the 1930s in the writings of the Belgian theologian Émile Mersch, who retrieved the thought of the Eastern Fathers. Cyril of Alexandria, for example, had stressed the physical and organic union between Christ, the Head of the Church, and every member of the Church.
The encyclical Mystici Corporis rejected two extreme ways of viewing the Church. The one saw it as an exclusively hierarchical reality; the other, as a purely charismatic entity.
c) “The encyclical also made the important point that, while Peter and his successors in the primacy are Vicars of Christ, the Church has only one Head, namely, Jesus Christ. Bishops, however, are “subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Roman Pontiff” (n. 42).
Which, again, leaves us with the tension between a church guided by the Holy Spirit and a church that is overly directed/ruled by the hierarchy.
on July 25th, 2008 at 11:07 am
One of our students did her doctoral dissertation on Anglican views of inter-communion in the 20th century, which shifted from a position very much like that of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to one that allows any baptized person to receive. But she also discovered that there are Anglicans who are now inviting anyone–baptized or not, Christian believers or not–to receive communion. And in Australia there are Anglicans proposing that an ordained priest is not necessary for leading the eucharistic celebration.
on July 25th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Fr. Komonchak, I’m not sure where your comments tend re maverick Anglicans who claim you don’t need a priest for the eucharist and that anybody can receive willy nilly. Anglicans of various stripes might propose any number of things, as we know many Catholics have done, that aren’t strictly in accord with official teaching.
And I’d be hesitant to say that these proposals are reflective of where Anglicanism is headed, though perhaps that wasn’t your implication.
I have never been in an Episcopal Church where communion was administered knowingly to an unbaptized person. The priest simply announces that all baptized Christians are welcome at the Lord’s Table. In some churches, non-baptized people are invited to the altar for a blessing, and are instructed to cross their hands over their chests to indicate they will not be receiving.
Jim McK, yes, my outlook is still fairly Anglican despite having gone through RCIA. I’ve been treading water in the middle of the Tiber for some years now.
on July 25th, 2008 at 11:31 am
A great post from Bill D.
It strikes me that the easy rhetorical of what is more important than unity invariably leads to the hard questions of what divides us. So I think Bill is right that where Lambeth is at is where we’ll have to go.
In a way, that’s too bad. We could have perhaps be further along if Bishop Law had not overruled Bernandin on common ground.I’ve already noted that at their last conference, NPLC allowed no discussion of “neuralgic” issues. That may push a few to the center, but I think we’ve learned top down doesn’t solve it any more.
The issue of women and woman’s ordination, for example, described by an O’Malley spokesman as “part of the unalterable deposit of faith” won’t move many one side or another. Administrative discretion will continue under fire in issues like parish closings (see currently Allentown, PA or camden, NJ.)
I think Bill properly underscores the notion that we ARE one body with Christ as our Head, led by the Spirit (and frequently the gifts of many are dummed down by our division.)
The preminent sacrament of Eucharist should bind us together but is it used to drive us apart?
Hard questions will continue to be raised.Stuff of the daily nitty gritty of life, especially human sexuality, will continue to be needed to be sorted through.
How that process of working through happens, as in the Anglican Church right now, is critical.
on July 25th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I don’t think open communion is only a fringe idea among Anglicans. Here’s a 2004 article that discusses it as a serious theological proposal: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200407/ai_n9459338
on July 25th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Kathy, I don’t think I said open communion was “only a fringe idea.”
The fact that Anglicans you can find one article wherein Anglicans discuss the ramifications of open communion, or even can find scattered parishes already doing it, does not mean that the Anglican hierarchy thinks it’s a good idea or is about to change the rules. Is it being debated at Lambeth? If not, then it’s a closed subject.
By way of analogy, I would offer that the notion of ordaining women is not a fringe idea among Catholics, and that its theological implications continue to be debated (see this issue of Commonweal, for ex), even though Rome says that issue is closed.
Debate and discussion do not necessarily portend change in that direction.
Of course, as a former Episcopalian, I still feel a strong emotional tie to Anglicanism that may affect my willingness to see which way the wind is blowing.
Just as a Catholic may feel a strong emotional revulsion for some of the goings on in the Anglican Communion, and be ready to believe that just about anything is in the offing.
To anybody: One of the angles nobody’s worked here–and I know very little about this, so I’m hoping someone will fill the gap in my ignorance–is how changes in Anglican teaching about the Eucharist or ordination will affect Anglican/Lutheran relations.
Lutherans accepted Anglicans into their communion some years ago. They have women clergy, but they require non-married people, including gay clergy, to be celibate.
on July 25th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
There’s often a gap between the professional religious leaders and the laity on these issues. I remember a poll taken some years back that asked the laity of several denominations where they stood on inclusive language. The overwhelming majority said, “What’s inclusive language?”
It wouldn’t surprise me if there are many Episcopal congregations in which the pastors (and vestries) wouldn’t dream of opening communion to unbaptized persons. But I don’t think “scattered” is the right word for those who do.
on July 25th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Btw, the ELCA policy is shifting on the sexuality issues: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements-in-Process/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx
on July 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Kathy, thanks for the Lutheran link.
I didn’t see a number or percentage in the article to which you referred earlier, and I’ve never seen it done in 20 years as an Anglican and as one who sneaks back from time to time to get my fix of Welsh hymns. So that suggested “scattered” to me.
If you don’t think “scattered” isn’t the right word, perhaps you could supply a number or percentage, or some other evidence that provides an accurate measure of the number of Anglican parishes that are actively inviting the unbaptized to the Eucharist.
In any case, I’m interested in why you want to press this point. Doesn’t orthodoxy demand that Catholics view Anglican communion as merely a bread-and-wine commemoration? As the Catholic priest in the next parish over told me, you could set out the Episcopal eucharist for the squirrels without committing any kind of sacrilege.
on July 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
That should be “if you don’t think ’scattered’ IS the right word.”
The teensy tiny type in the compose box is not friendly to my aforementioned myopia, no matter which of my glasses I’m using. Plus I’m also watching my neighbor trim his spirea bushes into something that looks like a box hedge, and I may have to run over there and snatch the loppers from his very hands and ask him what is wrong with his head.
on July 25th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
The new Amereica, out on line today, has an interesting piece by Austen Ivereigh on N.T. Wright”s (unfavorable) take on the Bishops who want to break away.
Worth a further discussion in itself???
on July 25th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Having just moved to a settled suburban neighborhood I am currently feeling heavy hedge-related pressure. I never thought of lawn mowing as a competive sport. How naive I have been!
I’m always hoping the Anglicans will find their way back–not in the current piecemeal fashion, but through theology. The open communion phenomenon feels like the bridges have been torn down and the ferry may not run for a thousand years.
These things cause me a really painful yearning.
on July 25th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
As the Catholic priest in the next parish over told me, you could set out the Episcopal eucharist for the squirrels without committing any kind of sacrilege.
Gasp! I hope he doesn’t mean that!
There is a discussion over on Vox-Nova about a Professor P. Z. Myers of The University of Minnesota who keeps threatening to desecrate a consecrated host, which he refers to as a “cracker.” Of course, this is totally reprehensible, even if he is entirely convinced it really is nothing more than a cracker, and, in fact, even if he is right. I don’t believe in desecrating anyone’s religious symbols, including symbols from religions I don’t believe in.
Of course, I am sure this priest doesn’t intend to set the squirrels loose on Episcopalian communion wafers, but nevertheless it seems to me that even if the Catholic Church is 100 percent correct about valid ordinations and the Real Presence, bread and wine that has been used in Episcopalian services is indeed sacred in a very real sense, since it is at minimum a symbol.
I don’t suppose anyone will take issue with the above, but there is something very off-putting about a remark like the priest allegedly made. And can anyone really be sure about any of this?
on July 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“I’m always hoping the Anglicans will find their way back–not in the current piecemeal fashion, but through theology.”
This, Kathy, I suggest is uppity ecumenism. We pick and choose our Augustine. Yet we feel we have the whole truth. Lot of blindness within if we are honest. The way is in Matthew 25 and other relevancies. Orthodoxy, is really foreign to Jesus.
on July 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
The Missal-Booklets we use state that the Eucharist is a sign of unity, and that this is why it is not offered to all Christians. This has a certain logic, but the statement goes on to say that some who are not united to the Cathoic Church are invited to take Communion but should follow the rules of their group. It then lists those who are so invited. This statement has always seemd disingenuous to me. If union is the issue, then only those who are united should be invited.
on July 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“c) “The encyclical also made the important point that, while Peter and his successors in the primacy are Vicars of Christ, the Church has only one Head, namely, Jesus Christ. Bishops, however, are “subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Roman Pontiff” (n. 42).”
Bill dH. ==
Doesn’t one of the documents of Vatican II say that the bishops authority derives from the office and not from the pope? Sorry, I forget just where. Yes, there’s a lot about being having to act with the pope.
on July 26th, 2008 at 7:12 am
I am not at all sure that good theology would take Anglicans back to Rome — after all they have had excellent theology for centuries. But I am sure that the present crisis is caused by bad theology and specifically Biblical Fundamentalism, which has infected our own Church as well.
on July 26th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Bill M.,
What are the sources of your claims? The source of my “uppity ecumenism” is the Second Vatican Council: “The attainment of union is the concern of the whole Church, faithful and shepherds alike.” (UR 5)
on July 26th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Jean,
However tiring it is to tread water, the Tiber is still in Rome. The insights and faith of Christians formed in other communities are an important contribution to our universality/catholicism. This is especially true in the discussion of the Hidden Body of Christ, if I might offer a slightly different translation of Pius XII’s phrase. (of course, it is an ironic and probably inaccurate translation, but that’s life)
The priest’s remark about offering the Anglican Eucharist to squirrels is sacrilege. Even though Anglican Orders are “absolutely null and void”, Anglican archbishops have appeared with popes in full episcopal garb. Apparently, Leo XIII’s “absolutely null and void” does not always mean “absolutely null and void”. I do not know what it does mean…
And, if you set your text size (on the “Page” dropdown in IE) to the largest size, you will be able to read you input halfway across the room.
on July 26th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I should add some context about the squirrel fodder remark: I believe I was annoying (surprise, surprise) this particular priest with my incessant questions about how the Anglican teaching about the Real Presence differs from Catholic notions. His sharp words were an attempt to move me off that topic to the larger point that, regardless of differences/similarities in teachings about the Eucharist, without a valid priest, you can’t have a valid communion.
I sometimes drive people to these kinds of harsh analogies, which I’m sure comes as a big surprise to everyone here.
But he hurt my little feelings.
So did Kathy’s comment about wishing the Anglicans would just get their theology in line with Rome and come back en masse instead of in piecemeal fashion.
Doesn’t make us piecemeal Catholics feel like the proverbial chopped liver. But I’m sure that wasn’t her intention.
The body often heals a few cells at a time. We must be patient.
on July 26th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Should be “DOES make us piecemeal Catholics feel like the proverbial etc.”
on July 26th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Jean,
if it is a question about “valid communion” rather than “valid Eucharist”, I think even less of the priest. He should know about “spiritual communion”, something as possible in the Anglican communion as in the Roman. Where there is a desire for true communion in Christ, the Spirit of Jesus makes it possible. This is different from Eucharistic communoin from a validly ordained priest, in that it shares the same divine Spirit but lacks the human “body and blood”. And while that has consequences, sharing the divine Spirit should not be minimized as “invalid”.
At least, that is how I think of it. Some who actually know something about theology might correct me.
on July 26th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Kathy,
Unity means the RCC must reform itself also. All of us must return to the gospel. Not just them.
on July 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Bill,
According to Vatican II, unity and renewal are both the work of the one Holy Spirit:
“In order that we might be unceasingly renewed in Him, He has shared with us His Spirit who, existing as one and the same being in the Head and in the members, gives life to, unifies and moves through the whole body. This He does in such a way that His work could be compared by the holy Fathers with the function which the principle of life, that is, the soul, fulfills in the human body.” (from LG 7)
on July 27th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
This thread,I think, is continued in an excellent way by Fr. imbelli’s new post today.
I still think it this one David Gibson has it right – we’ll need to have some similar way of trying to get past the hard nut issues.
I thought of this very much today after reading John Allen’s Times op-ed on Humanae Vitae.
(I;m sure thepiece won’t hurt John with the many hierarchy he likes to interview. I’m really not sure back then tjat many saw the demise of the papacy either, but certainly a decline in credibility.)
Allen’s point that Humane Vitae lives on strongly as the Catholic official position (among the hierarchy and their suporters on the right) also allows that a huge number pay no attention and . that I think is representative of the problem in our Church as well.
Finally, it’s nice to see the Holy Spirit mentioned again this month! Whether we’re certain we know what he’s up to or whether we’re busy listening for his promptings is still naother part of this.
on July 27th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Bob,
When you say “a huge number pay[s] no attention,” what do you mean? Who is not paying attention to whom? What kind of attention should be paid?
I’m not concerned about the sharpness of your remarks but rather their vagueness (see your final paragraph as well). Who are you talking about–and why not just say what you mean?
on July 28th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Author’s note: How about we move this discussion to Bob Imbelli’s post above…It is more up to date and on point. Thanks.
on July 28th, 2008 at 7:40 am
“When you say “a huge number pay[s] no attention,” what do you mean? Who is not paying attention to whom? What kind of attention should be paid?”
Possibly Bob is referring to studies that show Catholics use artificial contraception at fairly high rates. Here’s a report in the Times that cites a Tablet study showing that “50 percent of otherwise faithful Catholics use condoms or the Pill.” The study also cites other areas where Catholics are not following orthodox teaching.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4393251.ece
In any case, the demand for specifics is ironic from someone who has declined to provide numbers or evidence for this comment:
“It wouldn’t surprise me if there are many Episcopal congregations in which the pastors (and vestries) wouldn’t dream of opening communion to unbaptized persons. But I don’t think ’scattered’ is the right word for those who do.”
on July 28th, 2008 at 7:41 am
David, sorry; our posts crossed.
on July 28th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Ann Olivier – sorry, just got back to this blog. Yes, Vatican II in Lumen Gentium section 50 & 51 tried to organize a statement about authority, magesterium, centralization. Unfortunately, you can read the sections as contradictory – section 50 tries to posit a new way of looking at the papacy and apostolic succession along the lines of “service” – you can be called by the laying on of hands, you can be called by the community, you can be called by the Holy Spirit (an attempt to be more ecumenical and reflect better the understanding of our eastern rite). Yet, in section 51, the other side interjects the more traditional definition of papal primacy & apostolic succession and even attempts to prove this using scripture. So, as in Lambeth, so in the RCC, the question of authority and power continues. Appreciate the later blog on Lambeth but not sure that centralization is the answer. Balkanization is the other extreme but would propose that there is a middle ground using the eastern rite’s experience and coherence to their authority structure “primate” – bishops follow the apostles and using modern language, there is a dotted line to the primate.
on July 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am
A quick note on power. I was much taken with Nancy Pelosi’s comment on NPRabout her bok this morning that the old boys club hangs on, despite wome’s gains, as a power project. She refers to it as their “special sauce.”
Seems to me there is much of that “special sauce” among the hierarchy today , especially the JPII apointees and after. and the question of power (as Bishop Robinson suggested) is one that needs to be tackled honestly if we are to move on as well.