It took the last line of Vatican journalist Sandro Magister's analysis -- excerpted below -- to make the brilliance of Pope Benedict's outreach to Anglicans click with me:
In any case, the communities that are ready to enter the Catholic Church are part of the "traditionalist" wing of the Anglican Communion.Also traditionalist are the schismatic Lefebvrist communities that Benedict XVI is making increasing efforts to bring into obedience to Rome.
And also attached to the grand tradition are the Orthodox Churches which seem to be having more productive encounters with the current pontiff. From October 16-23 in Cyprus, the second round of dialogue - the first was in Ravenna, in 2007 - is being held between Catholics and Orthodox on the question of papal primacy, in the light of how it was lived during the first millennium.
Today more than ever, with Joseph Ratzinger as pope, the ecumenical journey seems not a pursuit of modernity, but a return to the terrain of tradition.
Of course! Benedict knows that the only Christians who are going to survive intact over the coming decades are those communities firmly rooted in tradition. Liberal Anglicans simply aren't going to make it, and not because they're bad people, but because there's precious little solid ground upon which they can stand as a distinctly Christian community against the strong currents of modernity. Benedict is trying to gather in as many faithful traditionalists as he can. What a blessing it would be if he and the Orthodox patriarchs could come to an understanding that could pave the way for reunion. Personally, I don't see how it could be done, given the wide divergence between Orthodox and Catholic theology since the Great Schism. But with God, all things are possible -- and I think as a purely secular matter (that is, for the sake of establishing a united front for the preservation and growth of the faith against a de-Christianizing world), re-establishing communion between Eastern and Western Christianity would be great for both. Long may this pope -- and the ecumenism of tradition -- live and prosper!
(Photo of Pope Benedict and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew by Josh Trevino, via Flickr)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Jon,
You do have a point with what you wrote.
What is odd, in a way, is that the "traditionalists" of Rome in ways are the modernists, at least when it comes to marriage and divorce. The view of the fathers from the first few centuries is not different from what we say today.
I am not too concerned about the possibility of a female deaconate. As Rome already has female altar boys, and female eucharistic ministers would it be such a flash point? My lack of concern is not over Rome's reaction, just that I don't see it happening in my lifetime.
The modernist and traditionalist divide in the west will be a difficult hurdle to overcome. Traditionalists are not always right. Some of their traditionalists would want their services in Latin, the modernists would want it in the vernacular. Those who want Latin fail to understand that the Vulgate was translating the Bible from Greek to Latin, the language used in the west, the vernacular. Now those same modernists of that age are the traditionalists of today who don't want the services in the language of the people.
I don't think we should be concerned if we support one side or the other so long as we stand for the same truth that we always have. But then again I don't think we will ever see a healing of the Great Schism. The fault is not theirs alone nor ours alone, to be clear, just that the changes over the centuries are just too great. Even when it comes to the role of the bishop of Rome, if we were to all agree with what the last council of the Church said (the one that Rome pretends does not exist in favor of the one that the last council overturned) both sides would have large groups who would be unhappy.
To "Your Name - Rick", "Cecilia" and "Hector":
I am sorry if you disagree with some of what I said.
I don't agree with all that you said, but do agree with some things.
But this is a discussion about the Anglicans.
So I will agree to disagree with you and not hijack the thread to something else.
Re: As Rome already has female altar boys
May I include this in my list of favorite oxymorons? It's every bit as delicious as when the vet told me this summer that two of my cat's "canine" teeth had to be pulled.
Re: Just curious- what do you think of the claim that the 'tolerance' of divorce was actually forced upon the Orthodox church by intense political pressure from the empire
Hector, the current canons on marriage (with some later modifications) date to the reign of Theodora II Restorer of the Icons (c. 840). I'm not sure why, but she decided that marriage should cease being a civic function and should instead be under the rule of the Church. Divorce of course was allowed under old Roman Law, so the Church basically inherited divorce as a reality, but insisted that only three canonical mariages should be permitted in any case (including widowhood). I don't think there was any force involved; Theodora II bears a good reputation (in fact she is a saint) and she was not tyrannical-- she seemed genuinely happy to see the Church restored to a more independent role in Byzantine society after the Iconoclast emperors had kept it on a short leash. My take on this is that divorce was simply accepted in Byzantium and had been since time immemorial, and the Church found an acommodation much as it had with a great many other matters of daily life that are not, strictly speaking, in tune with the Gospel.
Re: Henry was most definitely not forced to marry Catherine - he wanted to. His father ultimately was opposed to the marriage but as soon as Daddy died - Henry married Catherine
More or less true, although Henry VII was not strongly opposed to the marriage of Catherine to young Henry. He was a very crafty man ,and also a very greedy one and he was trying to find an excuse to keep Catherine's dowry while getting another wealthy wife (with a big dowry) for his second son. There were however some strong political reasons for the marriage, including domestic ones. Catherine also had English royal blood in her lineage and as such the marriage would strengthen the rather dubious Tudor claim to the throne.
Jon wrote:
Re: Just curious- what do you think of the claim that the 'tolerance' of divorce was actually forced upon the Orthodox church by intense political pressure from the empire.
I don't.
Not that you can't produce cases that in isolation would indicate that was the case. But the Church also said "no" when she limited the number of husbands or wives one could have, regardless of how prior marriages ended.
The Jews allowed for divorce and remarriage. It has been a fact of life from the time before Christ.
Getting a "church divorce" is not the same as getting a civil divorce. It isn't fraught with the issues of the Latin annulment since we don't view the sacrament as a legal contract which needs to be broken so as to pretend it never existed. A remarriage is not the same as the first one as far as the service is concerned either.
I don't see it as a result of pressure from the empire as much as I see it as a recognition that we are not perfect and that we may fail and fall in life. We have confession and absolution for the same reason. There has always been a penance that went along with the Church divorce. It has never been taken lightly. We know it isn't the way things should happen, and we try to prevent it from happening. But if your husband or wife abandons you and you are the innocent party, why should you suffer for what they did?
"But if your husband or wife abandons you and you are the innocent party, why should you suffer for what they did?" "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
None of us are innocent! OUR MOTHER MARY AND HER SON, ALONE, ARE INNOCENT!
Because some guy named Jesus Christ took a terrible beating and gave his life for a loser like me and my wife, who abandoned our marriage twenty years ago, with the encouragement of the Catholic Church that still supports her in her adultery.
The East and West can make all the damn excuses and constructs they want to and fool themselves and countless others in the process(SEE SCANDAL FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN'T SEE TRUTH) but HE TOOK HIS CROSS and I must, with all the bitching and moaning I do to my shame, CLIMB BACK ON MINE BECAUSE HE NEVER LEFT HIS!
Grow up Catholics and Orthodox. Regarding marriage you are BOTH SCANDALOUS and listen only to your own words. YOU ARE BOTH SENDING COUNTLESS SOULS TO HELL FOR YOUR DAMNED ACCOMMODATION OF ADULTERY AND ITS FRUIT.
Read here, I beg all of you:
Be converted regarding marriage. Yes, Monsignor Cormac Burke is a Catholic!
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/
Read his WHOLE WEBSITE.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.