As an Orthodox Rabbi in good standing, I am definitely only capable of an “outside” view of Pope Benedict’s announcement of an Apostolic Constitution for Anglicans who wish to enter into communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

Nonetheless, I am curious as to how “insiders” might view my observations.

1. A major, unfulfilled hope of the late Pope John Paul II, may he rest in peace, was to bring the Church to the point of “breathing with both lungs”, namely reunifying the Western Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) with the full range of Eastern Orthodox Churches (and not just the Uniate Churches).

2. Pope Benedict continues to have this as a goal, but in the meantime, to employ the same image, he may well have taken a decisive step to rebuilding detached lobes into the Western lung.

3. Bringing noticeable numbers of Anglicans back, with the bulk of their liturgical inheritance intact, adds a heritage that was valuable and that was lost. (By the way, anyone who thinks that it would have been better for Rome to work with a cohesive Anglican Communion must surely realize that at this time “cohesive” and “Anglican Communion” are contradictory terms.)

4. Who might be next? How about theologically conservative Lutherans, long a hope of the late Father Richard Neuhaus, may he rest in peace.

5. It strikes me that the Anglican initiative, and perhaps a Lutheran one as well, have a better short-range chance of success that the return of the Society of Saint Pius X. Forget Bishop Williamson, who was a true red herring. He needs a padded cell rather than a talking to. The real problem is that the Society has reasoned and principled objections to Vatican II on many fronts (especially religious freedom, ecumenism, and leaving behind an institutional, rather than personal, anti-Semitism), and it’s hard to see how they can climb down from those objections and return to accept Rome’s and the Council’s authority.

6. The first book written by Benedict that I ever read was “Truth and Tolerance”. Then I read “Salt of the Earth” and “G-d and the World”. From the trio, I learned one thing over all: whether as Pope Benedict or as Cardinal Ratzinger, this is a man who thinks big, very big. Benedict may well see the Apostolic Constitution for the Anglicans as a key step in rebuilding what he regards as a properly Christian Culture in Europe, North America, and Australia-and bringing one to Africa and Asia. See Ross Douthat at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Rabbi Chaim Frazer

I appreciate your distinction between tradition and Tradition. It is an important distinction to make. You point out that tradition may some times be a barrier to God in Tradition. I agree, but would also suggest that tradition can draw us more deeply into Tradition.

All the best,

AML

Yes both scripture and Tradition say we will be transformed and be in communion with God. But nowhere in scripture or “Tradition” does it say that the Beatific Vision involves making us physically unlimited, thus able to handle the bandwidth necessary to handle prayers or outside of time thus able to handle prayers in history or able to here the prayers of the living. I believe in prayers *for* the dead, since God is outside of time and thus my prayers can affect the past and I don’t think we’ll stop praying for each other even after the final judgment. I also believe that Molinism is the way God’s complete sovereignty and our unquestionable free will are compatible. But even though both these interpretations can be found in the history of the church and are compatible with Tradition, neither are “Tradition”. The true answer has not been revealed to us so they may well be “the tradition of men”.

For instance, from my understanding, the Eastern Orthodox are more likely to view liturgy “Tradition”, so Personal Ordinariates would likely be seen as favouring “tradition” over “Tradition” just to be popular instead of pleasing God. Yes there are Western Rite Churches but they’re closer to the original style Latin masses and seem (at least from my reading) to be regardless as less pure than the Byzantine liturgy.

From the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) point of view, the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) value Mary to lowly. Mary, although looked up to, has no doctrines associated with her in the EOC. Not so in the RCC. Similarly, in the RCC, the Rosary contains five “Hail Mary”s for every “Our Father” and “Glory to God” and is ended off with a “Hail Holy Mary”. In the EOC, the Prayer Rope (equivalent of the Rosary) focuses on “The Jesus Prayer”, but it’s perfectly acceptable to occationally pray to Mary or the saints or to pray for departed relatives. What is “Tradition” and what is “tradition”?

Even reading the Church Fathers isn’t always helpful. Since some things are particular for the time and place and conditions. For instance, since the saints were very much alive in the early church, asking for the saints to pray for us is little different than the Protestant practice of asking for someone to pray for you. But is prayer for intercession from dead saints “Tradition” or “tradition”? It’s not at all clear to me since there are clear and repeated Biblical admonitions not to contact the dead, and its not at all clear the state of the dead and our relations to them from scripture. (e.g. Do the dead hear us? Can the dead hear millions of people praying to them at a time and be able to pray so quickly so as not to not have their workload pile grow exponentially? When you die, do you simply appear at the last judgement since God is outside of time, and thus your prayers don’t reach the dead until the end of history?).