Richard John Neuhaus and Avery Cardinal Dulles were fond of referring to the Catholic Church’s irrevocable commitment to ecumenism. Why then haven’t any Catholics yet taken up the Andrew and Sarah Wilson’s proposal to respond to their Lutheran pilgrimage from Erfurt to Rome with a return journey? And why aren’t more Catholics (not to mention Orthodox) Christians discussing Presbyterian George Hunsinger’s serious and compelling ecumenical proposals in Eucharist and Ecumenism: Let Us Keep the Feast?
Just curious.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:47 am
You mean like participating in a book symposium in Pro Ecclesia (Summer 2010) as Margaret O’Gara did? Also, Hunsinger says that the immediate audience of his book is the Reformed Churches.
February 17th, 2011 | 11:06 am
That was indeed a welcome discussion, but it’s not enough. There are a series of well formulated, hard ecumenical questions directed to Reformed, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians in the center of the book. They have only begun to be addressed and are rarely discussed in extra-academic forums such as this one.
February 17th, 2011 | 11:16 am
Or are you referencing the positive book reviews by Catholic theologians Jeffrey Gros (Worship 83), Mary Agnew (Journal of Ecumenical Studies 45), Patrick Lyons (One in Christ 44), and Michael Magee (Theological Studies 71)? For a book that only came out in the fall of 2008 that seems to me to be a fairly high amount of immediate response to Hunsinger’s work. Something more sustained and substantive is not going to happen that quickly; scholarship, as you know, doesn’t move in internet time, nor does ecumenism.
February 17th, 2011 | 11:53 am
Perhaps because many Catholics (like this one) are beginning to take the view that over and above the divinely ordained commitment to the unity of all Christians under the one shepherd, the pursuit of this end through ecumenical dialogue rather than individual or group conversion is very much a matter of policy. That is, what separates Mortalium animos of Pius XI and Unitatis redintegratio of Vatican II is not doctrine, but policy.
And leaving aside the very different cases of eastern Orthodoxy and parts of Anglo-Catholicism, ecumenical dialogue with western Protestantism seems to be proving a waste of time – paper agreements like that on justification (advertising what we all knew to be a shared anti-Pelagianism, but leaving the crucial and equally dogmatic topics of merit, penance and indulgences unagreed) notwithstanding.
Ecumenical dialogue may prove as transitory a strategy in this area as the counter-reformation period’s reliance on coercion. Coercion back into the faith of erring baptized, such as Protestants, was of course seen by the Catholic magisterium and theologians of that time as a strategy to which the Church had an “irrevocable commitment” – as you can read in Bellarmine.
February 17th, 2011 | 12:17 pm
Matthew, my response (as a Catholic theology teacher) to your question would be thus:
1. There are many ways to be committed to ecumenism. I’d like to hope I’m doing more for ecumenism in my daily interactions with non-Catholic students in my class than I could through one pilgrimage or book reading. If Christian harmony is to be achieved it must take place “on the ground”, not just in the realms of intelligentsia or symbolism.
2. Your post is quite honestly the first I’ve heard of either proposal. It’s good you’re spreading the word!
3. Ecumenical efforts exist amidst a continuum of many pressing needs. I tend to feel winning the battle against abortion is the single most pressing issue today. I don’t necessarily think all Christians are called to focus first on it, though.
Let those members of the Body given the charism for such efforts continue, but let’s not assume ecumenism is the primary call of all Christians.
As Christ said, “Seek first the kingdom of heaven, and all these other things will be added to you.” Matthew 6:33.
February 17th, 2011 | 12:20 pm
I would be interested in hearing what people hope “ecumenism” will or should result in achieving. In other words, “Ecumenism to what end?”
What are the tangible changes ecumenism will/should bring to the world?
February 17th, 2011 | 12:32 pm
A primary lesson of the 20th century ecumenical movement was that committees and academic discussions are necessary but insufficient. Formal ecumenism has to be supplemented by on the ground changes in ecclesial culture. No, ecumenism doesn’t happen in internet time, but that doesn’t mean the internet can’t help it along. I will bet your bacon that there are people who read this blog who are unaware of the journals you so helpfully listed, or even of Hunsinger’s book. The brilliance of the Wilson’s pilgrimage was to make people aware of ecumenical advances who do not read theology journals. A Catholic who takes up their return-journey challenge may do more for ecumenism than the wisest of theologians, because advances need be made on both the academic and popular fronts.
February 17th, 2011 | 12:38 pm
That was addressed to baconboy (hence the pork reference) before I saw the responses above. Clearly I’ve yet to master internet time.
February 17th, 2011 | 12:52 pm
I haven’t yet read Hunsinger’s book (though it sounds intriguing) and therefore I cannot comment on it or the reception that it has received from Catholics. However, in my ecumenical discussions over the years — first as a Presbyterian and more recently as a Catholic — I have often encountered criticisms by Protestants that they feel “left out” or even personally slighted by the fact that they cannot partake in communion when they attend a Catholic mass. I have heard Protestants make the argument (as I myself once did) that Christians should together share in the Eucharist because the eventual unity that we seek will become a reality as a result of our shared sacramental celebration.
At risk of exaggerating, this argument strikes me as akin to an engaged couple arguing that they should enjoy sexual relations before they are married because the sexual act will help to prepare them for their life together as a married couple. In the Catholic view, the shared celebration of the Eucharist is the final fulfillment of a unity that exists officially and in fact through the Church, just as sexual intercourse is the final fullfillment of a unity between husband and wife that exists officially and in fact through marriage. Just as sexual intercourse is the intended end rather than a means to marriage, shared celebration of the Eucharist is the intended end rather than a means to Christian unity.
I make this point because some Protestants seem to complain that, by refusing to share celebration of the Eucharist with their separated brethren, Catholics are requiring Protestants to become Catholic as a condition of Christian unity. But surely isn’t it also the case that, by insisting on shared celebration of the Eucharist on their terms, Protestants are in effect insisting that Catholics become Protestant as a condition of Christian unity?
February 17th, 2011 | 12:59 pm
Matthew, thanks for your response, but be careful when there is bacon involved, because then the battle is to ‘to the pain’! :)
Let me explain why your post made me grumpy (besides the fact that my 8 month old was up from 1-3 am). It seems to me that one of the most important ways to advance the ecumenical discussion is not to imply that the other side is only paying lip service to ecumenism, which is what I took your post to do.
So my initial responses were meant simply to show that a quick search through ATLA (which you must have access to) would indicate that there are Catholic theologians who are engaging with Hunsinger’s thought. I hadn’t heard of Hunsinger’s book or read any of the reviews myself.
I guess I would have appreciated a post that went along the lines of, “Here’s a book that I think is an important contribution to ecumenical thought, but doesn’t seem to be getting much discussion. Has anyone read it? What do you think?” The gratuitous swipe at Catholics because they appear to be ignoring a book that most of them are unaware of put me off.
One of the risks of doctoral education is that we assume that because one of our professors writes a book that everyone else is aware of it. But things like Hunsinger’s work tend to take time to percolate before they make it to the majority of readers on FT. I am, however, grateful for your bringing to our attention.
February 17th, 2011 | 1:14 pm
Dan: Excellent post, I will use both those lines of argument in discussions!
As far as the book goes, I have a keen interest in theology and am studying for a master’s degree at a seminary but I have never heard of it.
February 17th, 2011 | 1:26 pm
What is helpful is to draw attention to the Catholic responsibility to participate in ecumenical discussion. So to answer Artaban’s question, the purpose of ecumenical discussion, as JPII discussed in Ut Unum Sint, is to lead to the full unity of the church in line with the prayer of Jesus. And while all Catholics are expected to participate in ecumenical efforts, I take section 31 of UUS to bring a special responsibility for those of us who are theologians to participate in ecumenical dialogue (and note the emphasis on dialogue, not just other actions). See also sections 15.3, 20.1 and 101.1. As a Catholic theologian I take it as a requirement of my role that I must participate in ecumenical dialogue; which is probably a good requirement because I’m not inclined to do it because I want to (and thus the need for conversion that JPII talks about).
February 17th, 2011 | 2:16 pm
Interestingly, this article, posted On the Square shortly after this post, is remarkably pertinent to our discussion. It illustrates both the Catholic tendency to give up on ecumenism as futile, and a robust critique of that tendency by a Catholic. An important article.
All good points, baconboy, about Hunsinger’s book. I approached it that way a while back at my home address, but this was just a mention of it. Still, the question remains: Who’s gonna take up the Wilson challenge? I’m hoping to instigate someone.
Dan, I agree with your pre-marital analogy. I believe eucharistic communion should await a more formal reconciliation.
February 17th, 2011 | 2:33 pm
Dan,
I’m a Catholic turned Methodist, and the inability to share the Eucharist still pains me. Even though Methodists clarify at the beginning of the Eucharist that all who intend a Christian life are welcome to participate, some Catholic visitors refuse to take part, and I always feel that an opportunity for brotherhood has been missed.
There are ways to make an ecumenical Eucharist work. A well-written liturgy can clarify that Christians will take the meal with different expectations and beliefs. We should be able to follow Christ’s command to meet and share this meal without letting our different understandings of what the meal is and means get in the way.
For example, although Methodists don’t believe in transubstantiation, we do believe in the Real Presence, and though we believe that our pastors authentically follow in apostolic succession, we are quite aware that the Roman Catholic Church does not honor that belief.
Although the distinctiveness of Christian traditions is important to cherish, the common brotherhood is more important still.
I can’t agree with the idea that the Eucharist is the “intended end” of unity or even its means. The various Christian churches are already members of the body of Christ. Churches already work together in various ways and already share meals in each other’s houses if not in our churches.
Finally, I’m reminded of one of those petty disputes I’ve sometimes seen between Catholics and Protestants. My niece married into a Protestant family, and my sister was proud that her family was offered a chance to lead a prayer at the rehearsal dinner. She wanted to recite the “Our Father,” but she gathered her Catholic family together beforehand and instructed us to recite the end especially loudly so that the Protestants wouldn’t end the prayer incorrectly. This is sheer childishness.
February 17th, 2011 | 4:22 pm
What would you have us do?
Can you summarize what is proposed by each of these authors?
February 17th, 2011 | 10:31 pm
Michael,
I don’t doubt that the divisions in the Church are very painful, and the pain caused by those divisions is even greater by the fact that we cannot yet fully share together in the Eucharist. The pain is perhaps especially noticeable to those of us who have family members on both sides of the Tiber. Divisions in a family are always the hardest divisions to bear, and the kind of silly one-up-manship that you described on the part of your Catholic relatives doesn’t help matters.
I’m also fully in favor of sharing meals together in each other’s houses and churches. I have enjoyed many a covered dish supper with good Methodists, and I know that you would be welcomed with open arms at a Friday night fish fry at a Catholic parish like my own. But the Eucharist is not just another ecumenical pizza and beer party.
The fact that some non-Catholic Christians believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is immaterial. (As a Presbyterian, I actually believed not only in the Real Presence, but, uncharacteristically for a Calvinist, in Transubstantiation.) Differing understandings of the Eucharist are part of the issue, but they are merely a sympton of a much deeper theological division.
You write that “[t]he various Christian churches are already members of the body of Christ.” That’s a distinctively Protestant view of the Church, and therein lies the rub. Perhaps a theologian can attempt a succinct explanation of Catholic ecclesiology that is short enough to fit on a blog post (such a task is beyond the paygrade of this Catholic layman). But suffice it to say that, while all baptized Christians are a part of Christ’s Body, the Church, in the Catholic view the Church is not just the mystical union of believers but is a visible and present reality here on earth that “subsists in” the Catholic Church. Ultimately it is because of that differing understanding of the Church that Catholics cannot share in the Eucharist with other believers until true and visible unity is achieved.
In the meantime, I certainly hope that all Christians can continue to work toward that day when we can all join in the Marriage Feast of the Lamb in true and complete unity. In my view, this journal does a great job of advancing that goal.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:50 pm
As a Catholic, I have not answered the Wilson’s proposal, because my husband and I can not fund a month plus expedition. Also most Americans don’ get as much vacation time as the Wilson’s who are from France. Get real.
As for Hunsinger’s book, it has not come under my radar.
February 18th, 2011 | 7:46 am
It is not impossible to mentally picture Screwtape, his feet up, resting a bit from his labors, while we Christians squabble among ourselves.
If union is achieved, it will be in Christ through the action of the Holy Spirit. It will be a sacramental union, not of human origin.
Within that sacramental unity, schools of thought can exist, exploring theological questions to the members “hearts’ content”, but only, as Pope Benedict teaches, on bended knee.
February 18th, 2011 | 9:07 am
The Wilsons aren’t from France, and it wasn’t a vacation. They’ve incurred considerable debt from the journey, but lots of people know about ecumenism because of their walk who wouldn’t have known otherwise. A little gimmicky perhaps, but it’s not as if old ecumenical strategies were necessarily working.
February 18th, 2011 | 9:57 am
I hate to say this, but as a Catholic I am not especially interested in walking from Rome to some town in Germany.
Don’t get me wrong, I love all my Protestant brethren, and I have plenty of respect for the figure on Martin Luther. The fact unfortunately remains that for Protestants Rome is paradoxically part of their identity, but the reverse is not true. As much as I may care about ecumenism, Rome and Erfurt are simply not two opposite polarities for me.
February 18th, 2011 | 10:23 am
I will reply to the Wilson challenge by directing any readers to the response of Carlo Lancellotti, without saying that I share his “plenty of respect” for Martin Luther. I have been to Rome. I know what Rome means to Christianity. Erfurt is no Rome.
February 18th, 2011 | 10:28 am
“I’m a Catholic turned Methodist, and the inability to share the Eucharist still pains me. Even though Methodists clarify at the beginning of the Eucharist that all who intend a Christian life are welcome to participate, some Catholic visitors refuse to take part, and I always feel that an opportunity for brotherhood has been missed.”
I’m a Greek Catholic. We follow the Byzantine rite, in common with the Eastern Orthodox. Though it is generally kept quiet, there is fairly widespread intercommunion among Greek Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I have no qualms about receiving Communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church (assuming my relationship with the pastor is close enough that he would permit it), nor with Eastern Orthodox Christians receiving in my Church (assuming they are properly disposed and do so freely).
But I would not receive in any Protestant community, no matter how “high church” its approach to the Eucharist. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom makes clear that two conditions must be met before reception: that there be no grievances among those partaking (“Let us love one another so that with one mind we may confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and indivisible”) and unity in faith (“Asking for unity in faith and for communion in the Holy Spirit, let us commend ourselves and one another, and our whole life unto Christ our God”).
While I do not know that many Methodists, and while I do not have any quarrel with the ones I do know, I also know that we do not share the unity in faith that is symbolized in the Eucharist; hence our sharing would at some level be a lie.
Full ecclesial communion is the last, not the first, step on the road to Christian unity. If there isn’t full ecclesial communion between the Greek Catholics and their Orthodox brethren, where “the only thin preventing full communion is the absence of communion”, how could we expect to extend the Chalice–or to receive–from those with whom we have real, substantive disagreement about fundamental elements of the faith?
February 18th, 2011 | 10:35 am
“Ultimately it is because of that differing understanding of the Church that Catholics cannot share in the Eucharist with other believers until true and visible unity is achieved.”
That’s not precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. The Code of Canons, as well as the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches, allows Catholic Christians to receive in the other Apostolic Churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East), and conversely permits the faithful of those Churches to receive from their Catholic counterparts.
Intercommunion is quite common between Greek Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, particularly in the United States and the Middle East (it used to be common in Eastern Europe as well, before the Communists suppressed the Greek Catholic Churches).
The Holy See has gone even further in the case of the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, formally establishing “communicatio in sacris” between them. A hair’s breadth short of full communion, it allows laity of each Church to receive all the sacraments from either Church without prejudice; all that is lacking is concelebration of the clergy and commemoration of each other’s hierarchy in the liturgy.
In speaking of Eucharistic sharing, it is therefore necessary to distinguish between those confessions that Rome recognizes as “true Churches”, and those which, having abandoned Tradition to a greater or lesser extent, are described only as “ecclesial communities”.
February 18th, 2011 | 10:49 am
Carlo Lancellotti’s point is well taken: “Rome and Erfurt are simply not two opposite polarities.” It is critical for both Protestants and Catholics to understand this.
While we probably all agree that “ecumenism” is a good thing – always better to talk and be civil to each other and all that – the fact is that ecumenical activities will (must?) be seen by Protestants as a discussion between equals. This simply cannot be the case for Catholics who will see the ultimate point of these activities as Protestant reunification with the Church they never should have left in the first place.
The analogy I would use (and I admit it should not be taken farther than is necessary to make the point) is the reunification of Germany after the Cold War.
That was absolutely not a merger between two equal parties. It was East Germany ceasing to be East Germany and becoming (again) part of the real Germany. Protestantism is East Germany. Catholicism is (the real) Germany. How can ecumenism mean anything to a Catholic other than the eventual welcoming of Protestants back to the fold?
As Protestants are not likely to accept that analogy, of what can ecumenism consist other than simply that we keep talking politely to each other and hope for a breakthrough?
February 18th, 2011 | 2:46 pm
Dear JAM,
I am not sure that Carlo was making a point about “equality” or lack of it between Catholic and Protestant. He was more talking about the lack of a certain kind of symmetry. I think he was saying that Protestantism necessarily defines itself, in part, in relation to “Rome” in a way that Catholicism does not define itself in relation to “Erfurt” (which clearly is meant as a symbol here of Protestantism). For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church barely adverts to the existence of Protestantism: one can unfold the entire Catholic doctrinal system without reference to Protestantism. In that sense “Erfurt” simply has much, much less meaning to Catholics than “Rome” has for Protestants. Indeed, this is dramatized by the fact that most Catholics have never even *heard* of the city of Erfurt. That, I think, is what Carlo was alluding when he asked why he should bother hiking to “some town in Germany”.
(Dear Carlo: Greetings! I remember we shared a podium at a meeting at Baylor a few years ago. Steve Barr)
February 18th, 2011 | 2:52 pm
“Carlo Lancellotti’s point is well taken: “Rome and Erfurt are simply not two opposite polarities.” It is critical for both Protestants and Catholics to understand this.”
From the perspective of an Eastern Christian, Rome and Erfurt are flip sides of the same coin–or as the 19th century Russian theologian Aleksei Khomiakov wrote, “Every Protestant is an incipient Papist”.
For better or worse, Protestants and Roman Catholics share the same frame of reference, the same theological and spiritual coordinate system. You have agreed on the important questions, and disagree only on the answers. We, on the other hand, think you are both debating the wrong questions.
February 18th, 2011 | 4:00 pm
Hi Stephen,
good to hear from you!
You are precisely right. I did not mean any disrespect to Erfurt, just that for a Protestant a trip from Erfurt to Rome has a deep symbolic significance, whereas for a Catholic going to Erfurt carries no similar symbolic meaning.
February 18th, 2011 | 4:56 pm
… one can unfold the entire Catholic doctrinal system without reference to Protestantism.
In one sense yes, in another sense no. One certainly could lay out a dogmatic theology of Catholicism without any references to Protestantism. But one couldn’t, without being misleading, lay out a historical theology of Catholicism without any references to Protestantism. Think of the Council of Trent, for instance. Historians refer to that as the beginning of the “Counter-Reformation” for a reason.
February 18th, 2011 | 5:39 pm
JB has an excellent point. To some extent, all of (Latin) Catholic theology since the 16th century has been a reaction to the Reformation–either countering its excesses, or correcting errors and abuses correctly identified by the Reformers.
There has been considerable convergence by the Latin Church towards the “catholic” elements of the Reformation critique of the Renaissance Church, to the point where serious articles have appeared (including several in First Things) declaring the Reformation over, and Luther to have won on points.
On the other hand, since the 1960s, many, if not most of the Protestant denominations have moved not only further away from the Tradition, but also from the positions of the magisterial reformers, most of whom would not recognize what is being done in their names.
So, on the one hand, it is impossible to discuss the development of Catholic doctrine without a discussion of the Reformation, but on the other hand, Protestantism as a whole seems running from the Reformation into wholesale antinomianism.
February 18th, 2011 | 5:44 pm
Dan,
You’re right that “Differing understandings of the Eucharist … are merely a symptom of a much deeper theological division,” but that is true concerning every one of the differences among Christian churches. Doctrine, ecclesiology, tradition, liturgy, practice, everything expresses the theological differences among the churches.
The question for ecumenism is how to express our unity as Christians while remaining true to ourselves. As the center of Christian worship, the Eucharist seems a starting point rather than an ending point for ecumenical efforts. It was through meals after all that Jesus offered fellowship to all kinds of sinners.
Your objection that viewing Christian churches as already members of the body of Christ is “a distinctively Protestant view of the Church” is quite right, but it needn’t be taken as a barrier. Churches may even have different ways of understanding and thinking theologically about unity.
At our current historical moment, Roman Catholicism is very much interested in being ecumenical eastwards rather than westwards, and as a result, it throws up barriers that need not exist. It could think creatively and liturgically as it has in the past, but it doesn’t want to right now.
Take, for example, Stuart’s comments below (his 2:52 post). He’s proud of the Greek Catholic communion with Rome, but he thinks Protestants and Roman Catholics are more alike than Roman and Eastern Christians. We in the West ask the “wrong questions,” but he’s willing to share the Eucharist with you and not with Protestants.
As usual, politics get in the way of or encourage various kinds of ecumenism.
—
Carlo,
You said, “The fact unfortunately remains that for Protestants Rome is paradoxically part of their identity, but the reverse is not true.” I disagree. The Protestant Reformation is central to Roman Catholic identity and self-understanding. From the Counter-Reformation through the present, Roman Catholicism has wanted to prove that Protestants were wrong about its nature, and one often hears Catholics say they don’t want to become like the Protestant churches. This attitude has made Catholicism more Catholic than it was before the Reformation.
—
Stuart,
The idea that “unity of faith” prevents Protestants and Catholics from sharing the Eucharist raises the question of which elements of faith are essential for sharing the Eucharist. Is it gathering in the name of Jesus? Baptism? Acceptance of all the elements of the Nicene Creed? Acceptance of the Real Presence? Acceptance of transubstantiation? Membership in a particular church?
Different churches answer this question differently, but ecumenism at least asks us to think about why we feel the need to draw the line here rather than elsewhere.
—
JAM,
You said, “The fact is that ecumenical activities will (must?) be seen by Protestants as a discussion between equals. This simply cannot be the case for Catholics who will see the ultimate point of these activities as Protestant reunification with the Church they never should have left in the first place.”
On the contrary, I see Catholic conversations with Methodists as a conversation with your betters. Methodism and Anglicism are more fully and authentically Christ’s church than Catholicism, and in their different ways, so too are the Quakers and Mennonites. Still, there is much to value in the Roman Catholic tradition, and the Roman Catholic Church provides a needed witness.
At bottom, we’re all in this together. The more we find ways of acknowledging that unity the better. It seems obvious that the center of worship in the Eucharist is the place to start.
February 18th, 2011 | 7:47 pm
Michael:
“The Protestant Reformation is central to Roman Catholic identity and self-understanding.”
I think that’s a very English-speaking perspective because your culture is shaped by Protestantism. If you had grown up in Italy or Poland or Vietnam or the Philippines or most of South America (at least until recently) you could have spent your whole life as a Catholic without ever giving one thought to the existence of Protestantism.
February 18th, 2011 | 9:43 pm
Erfurt had to do with the years 1510/2010. More here.
February 18th, 2011 | 10:47 pm
“I think that’s a very English-speaking perspective because your culture is shaped by Protestantism.”
Few people know the history of the Reformation in Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania) or how close it came to succeeding. The struggle there was bitter, and had a critical effect on the development of the Orthodox Churches and their offshoots, the so-called “Unia” or Greek Catholic Churches. Only after a century of religious conflict was the Catholic identity of Poland settled.
February 18th, 2011 | 11:26 pm
“The idea that “unity of faith” prevents Protestants and Catholics from sharing the Eucharist raises the question of which elements of faith are essential for sharing the Eucharist. Is it gathering in the name of Jesus? Baptism? Acceptance of all the elements of the Nicene Creed? Acceptance of the Real Presence? Acceptance of transubstantiation? Membership in a particular church?”
If you have to ask, then the answer is you don’t share unity in faith. The Orthodox will give you the same answer (and in spades). I personally consider the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to share the essential unity in faith (as a Greek Catholic, I am an Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome), but there are many Orthodox who would disagree, which is why, even though we share much more with each other than either of us with the Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, and the rest of the Protestant denominations, we do not yet share full and visible communion–which is a tragedy especially for the Greek Catholics, who have everything in common with the Orthodox.
“As usual, politics get in the way of or encourage various kinds of ecumenism.”
Mostly the squishy, lowest common denominator, hold hands and get-your-kum-bay-yayas off kind.
“Different churches answer this question differently, but ecumenism at least asks us to think about why we feel the need to draw the line here rather than elsewhere.”
Perhaps if you ever stood through the Anathemas we chant on the first Sunday in Lent, the “Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy”, you would know. As we conclude:
“This is the Faith of the Apostles! This is the Faith of the Fathers! This is the Faith that hath established the whole world!”
February 19th, 2011 | 1:10 pm
Carlo,
You’re surely right that, in those regions in which there is no Protestant presence, Catholics don’t think much about Protestantism, but I was making a point similar to JB’s and to Stuart’s response to JB, which is that Catholic theology and practice has been wrestling with Protestantism ever since the Reformation. Rome lost much of its territory and influence, and it has cleaned up its act and tried to regain that territory and influence ever since. In the process, it has reshaped its theology, liturgy, and other elements.
—
Stuart,
When you say, “If you have to ask, then the answer is you don’t share unity in faith,” you give a silly answer to a serious question. You then go on to give examples from you personally as distinguished from other Orthodox that illustrate my point that deciding on what counts as “unity of faith” is a conscious decision to agree on which elements are important to hold in common.
Your conclusion does little more than stir up more dust than clarity. Every Protestant church believes that it maintains the faith of the apostles and fathers and believes that its faith has established the whole world.
Although you mock my assertion that institutional politics gets in the way of ecumenism, you had just written a paragraph describing how politics gets in the way of Orthodox seeing how they share a unity of faith with Rome.
You need to think more clearly about the subject.
February 19th, 2011 | 2:17 pm
“Your conclusion does little more than stir up more dust than clarity. Every Protestant church believes that it maintains the faith of the apostles and fathers and believes that its faith has established the whole world.”
To a greater or lesser extent, every Protestant denomination is wrong. Their assertions can only be made by consciously ignoring the overwhelming weight of history from the end of the first century through the dawn of the 16th.
Protestantism is thus ahistorical, which is why Newman correctly observed that to be deeply immersed in history is the death of Protestantism
February 19th, 2011 | 4:20 pm
Stuart,
I aver something opposite, of course, which is that, to a greater or lesser extent, Catholicism, whether Roman or Greek, and Orthodoxy, whether Eastern or Oriental, have given themselves over to some form of Phariseeism, using pride in empty ritual to bury the active discipleship for which Jesus called. Roman Catholicism at least has the virtue of remembering the meaning of discipleship more frequently than either Greek Catholics or the Orthodox, though I wouldn’t expect you to understand what I mean.
What most concerns me right now is your participation in a forum whose basic assumptions you don’t share or even respect. Ecumenism of whatever sort, even the impoverished version you promote, requires requires both charity and an interest in sharing.
You, however, have a chip on your shoulder, an inferiority complex linked to your attachment to a Roman Church whose adherents ignore your kind entirely and whose leadership only makes use of you for its purposes. The result is that you praise Roman Catholicism only to complain of its misuse of you. Meanwhile, your contributions exhibit a desire only to show off how much book knowledge you have accumulated. Book knowledge can only carry you so far, especially with your limited ability to think logically.
Whenever you confront someone who has reached a different conclusion or who works from a different set of assumptions, you resort to caricature and insult instead of genuinely engaging the issues at hand. We could have had an interesting and mutually edifying conversation about what various Christians share and how we might build community, but you remain sadly self involved.
Best of luck on your life journey.
February 19th, 2011 | 4:59 pm
s far as I can see, the reunion of the churches will not be served unless every tradition and communion can become more self-critical and less complacent than is currently the case. It is matter of a deeper conversion to Christ all around.
Every tradition and communion has to ask what it might to learn from the others.
I try to show what this might mean for the Reformed tradition (my own) in my eucharist book.
Smugness and ecclesiastical one-up-manship, however, have no place in serious ecumenical dialogue.
February 19th, 2011 | 8:20 pm
“Best of luck on your life journey.”
(Snort!)
And right after the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee, too. The Prayer of the Publican (Michael’s Methodist Recension):
O Lord, I thank thee that thou didst not make me as this Pharisee, whose poop stinketh not, and whose righteousness is distasteful in thy sight.
February 19th, 2011 | 8:31 pm
“Although you mock my assertion that institutional politics gets in the way of ecumenism, you had just written a paragraph describing how politics gets in the way of Orthodox seeing how they share a unity of faith with Rome.”
An excellent example of why it is so difficult to take Michael seriously. If he knew an iota of Church history, he would realize that the last thing standing in the way of restored communion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is “institutional politics”.
Indeed, throughout history there have been several occasions on which the hierarchs of both Churches have come to agreement (e.g., Second Council of Lyons, 1274; Council of Florence, 1439), only to see the agreements repudiated by the people. Today, the theologians of the Joint International Theological Commission have reached agreement on all substantive issues but one, and undoubtedly, given time, they could resolve the last Big Problem (which is, of course, the definition and exercise of Papal primacy).
But assuming they did so, it is almost certain that the agreement would be rejected once again by the rank-and-file (though Catholics are more likely to go along than the Orthodox), whose perspective on theological matters tends to be more rigid and less well informed than that of the higher clergy and theologians, and who tend to view any accommodation, of whatever kind, as a betrayal of the Tradition.
Ecumenism therefore must be built from the bottom up, as well as from the top down, and the dialogue must proceed along two tracks: the Dialogue of Love, by which we recover our knowledge of each other as brethren in Christ, and share, to the extent we are able, in the exercise of the Great Commission; and also the Dialogue of Truth, in which both sides frankly exchange their own positions, and consider objectively and with charity, the positions of the other, not diluting the truth in order to reach agreement, but working prayerfully and diligently together to reach a mutual understanding of truth.
There are no shortcuts in this, and, ultimately, the unity of all will be the result of the descent, action and divine grace of the Holy Spirit, in God’s own good time, and not our own. But, good Eastern Christian that I am, I believe that the Spirit requires our active cooperation if grace is to bear fruit, for it is just a gift, freely given, and we are free to accept or reject the gift.
February 20th, 2011 | 6:55 pm
Stuart,
I don’t think you’re actually capable of conversing respectfully with someone who disagrees with you, but I’m game to try one more time.
So you’re saying that “hierarchs of both Churches have come to agreement” but “the agreements repudiated by the people.” And further you’re saying that this is not an example of “institutional politics.”
Then what is it? I would say that the “people” are more attached to the “institution” of Orthodoxy than they are to their identity as Christians and in that sense they are participating in “institutional politics.” In other words, they have come to think that Orthodoxy means the same thing as Christian or true Christian, but you seem to think otherwise. You could explain your logic calmly and respectfully as I just have, or you could resort to your usual dismissive non sequiturs.
As for your reference to the parable of Publican and Pharisee, the reference again demonstrates the divide between Orthodox and Protestant. The Orthodox use the parable merely to prepare for Lent, while we Protestants see the parable as part of a far larger pattern of parables, debates, and references that warn us, not to be more humble as the Orthodox reduce the parable, but to turn our attention away from empty ritual and toward real sanctification. Perhaps you would better understand Protestantism if you took the time to understand it.
February 21st, 2011 | 1:08 pm
“I don’t think you’re actually capable of conversing respectfully with someone who disagrees with you, but I’m game to try one more time.”
You say that all the time, just before you insult me–or my intelligence. Which is it to be this time?
“So you’re saying that “hierarchs of both Churches have come to agreement” but “the agreements repudiated by the people.” And further you’re saying that this is not an example of “institutional politics.””
That is correct.
“Then what is it? I would say that the “people” are more attached to the “institution” of Orthodoxy than they are to their identity as Christians and in that sense they are participating in “institutional politics.” In other words, they have come to think that Orthodoxy means the same thing as Christian or true Christian, but you seem to think otherwise. You could explain your logic calmly and respectfully as I just have, or you could resort to your usual dismissive non sequiturs.”
You would, considering that you are married to the infinitely malleable definition of Christianity that is modern Methodism. But I would say that, to the typical Orthodox Christian, the essence of Christianity is offering right worship (or true glory) to God–ortho doxia. Or as the Latins would put it, Lex orandi, lex credendi: the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. The institution of Orthodoxy–the hierarchy, clergy, the buildings and so forth–are all subordinate to that right worship. Time and again, when all or part of the hierarchy fell into heresy (Is there such a concept of heresy in Methodism? But I digress.), the people emerged as the defenders of the true faith–even when it went against the institutional interest (which is why Constantinople is Istambul today). It is ironic that a Protestant who believes the Church is the aggregation of the baptized would begin making distinctions between the people as the Laos tou Theou and the people as part of the institution.
“As for your reference to the parable of Publican and Pharisee, the reference again demonstrates the divide between Orthodox and Protestant. The Orthodox use the parable merely to prepare for Lent, while we Protestants see the parable as part of a far larger pattern of parables, debates, and references that warn us, not to be more humble as the Orthodox reduce the parable, but to turn our attention away from empty ritual and toward real sanctification. Perhaps you would better understand Protestantism if you took the time to understand it.”
So, it’s going to both at once: you insult me, and then you insult my intelligence.
February 21st, 2011 | 3:32 pm
Stuart,
Before you start crying about your ill-use, review the record.
I asked a serious question about which elements of faith are considered essential for sharing the Eucharist and observed that different churches will answer that question differently but that ecumenism raises the question of where to draw those lines.
To that question, you provided the snotty reply, “If you have to ask, then the answer is you don’t share unity in faith.” You then proceeded to contradict yourself by explaining that you “personally” in fact have an answer that differs from other Orthodox. You can’t seem to decide whether what constitutes unity of faith is self-evident or not.
The rest of your reply went south from there into derogatory comments about ecumenism as “squishy, lowest common denominator, hold hands and get-your-kum-bay-yayas off.”
None of these comments recommend you as someone who is afraid of insults or who possesses great intelligence. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
I won’t reward your boo-hooing with further conversation.
February 21st, 2011 | 10:01 pm
“I won’t reward your boo-hooing with further conversation.”
My sincere thanks.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact