Ad
ShalomPlace.com    Shalom Place Community    Shalom Place Discussion Groups  Hop To Forum Categories  General Discussion Forums  Hop To Forums  Christian Morality and Theology    Discipline, Doctrine & Dogma in Roman-Anglican Catholic Dialogue
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Discipline, Doctrine & Dogma in Roman-Anglican Catholic Dialogue Login/Join 
posted
I once strongly considered converting from Roman to Anglican Catholic, likely agonizing as much as Newman, who converted in the opposite direction. How many times have progressive Roman Catholics been sarcastically urged to go ahead and convert by various fundamentalistic traditionalists since our beliefs were "not in keeping with the faith?" Below, is an earnest and neither casual nor cursory treatment of the subject. I submit these materials with a focus on the PROCESSES by which we come to decisions and beliefs and not so much on any individual differences in belief between our communions. (The thread would be too unwieldly if we tried to treat individual church disciplines and moral doctrines.)

After all, while there has never been an infallible papal pronouncement to which I could not give my wholehearted assent, I otherwise do adamantly disagree with many hierarchical positions such as regarding a married priesthood, women priests, obligatory confession, eucharistic sharing, divorce and remarriage, artificial contraception, various so-called grave & intrinsic moral disorders of human sexuality or any indubitable and a priori definitions employed vis a vis human personhood and theological anthropology.

At times, I truly have wondered if I belonged to Rome or Canterbury, and I suspect many others have, too, and, perhaps, still do? My short answer is: You're already home; take a look around ...

In other words, for example, take a look, below, at some excerpts from the September 2007 report of the International Anglican - Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission: Growing Together in Unity and Mission: Building on 40 years of Anglican - Roman Catholic Dialogue.

Does anyone see any differences in essential dogma? Are some of you not rather surprised at the extent of agreement, especially given the nature of same?

Are our differences not rather located in such accidentals as matters of church discipline or in such moral teachings where Catholics can exercise legitimate choices in their moral decision-making? (To be sure, there
has been a creeping infallibility in such differences but there have never been infallible pronouncements regarding same.)

"As we shall see, reputable theologians defend positions on moral issues contrary to the official teaching of the Roman magisterium. If Catholics have the right to follow such options, they must have the right to know that the options exist. It is wrong to attempt to conceal such knowledge from Catholics. It is wrong to present the official teachings, in Rahner's words, as though there were no doubt whatever about their definitive correctness
and as though further discussion about the matter by Catholic theologians would be inappropriate....To deprive Catholics of the knowledge of legitimate choices in their moral decision-making, to insist that moral issues are closed when actually they are still open, is itself immoral." See: �Probabilism: The Right to Know of Moral Options�, which is the third chapter of __Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic__

For those who have neither the time nor inclination for a long post, you can safely consider the above as an executive summary. My conclusion is that we belong neither to Rome nor Canterbury, but to the Perfector and Finisher of our faith. And I'm going to submit to
ever-ongoing finishing by blooming where I was planted among my family, friends and co-religionists, enjoying the very special communion between our Anglican, Roman and Orthodox traditions, the special fellowship of all my Christian sisters and brothers, and the general fellowship of all persons of goodwill.

Respectfully,
JB


I gathered these excerpts together to highlight and summarize the report but recognize these affirmations should not be taken out of context. So, I made this url where the entire document can be accessed: http://tinyurl.com/35p69h
to foster the wide study of these agreed statements.

Below is my heavily redacted summary.

quote:


In reflecting on our faith together it is vital that all bishops ensure that the Agreed Statements of ARCIC are widely studied in both Communions.

The constitutive elements of ecclesial communion include: one faith, one baptism, the one Eucharist, acceptance of basic moral values, a ministry of oversight entrusted to the episcopate with collegial and primatial dimensions, and the episcopal ministry of a universal primate as the visible focus of unity.

God desires the visible unity of all Christian people and that such unity is itself part of our witness.

Through this theological dialogue over forty years Anglicans and Roman Catholics have grown closer together and have come to see that what they hold in common is far greater than those things in which they differ.

In liturgical celebrations, we regularly make the same trinitarian profession of faith in the form of the Apostles� Creed or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

In approaching Scripture, the Christian faithful draw upon the rich diversity of methods of reading and interpretation used throughout the Church�s history (e.g. historical-critical, exegetical, typological, spiritual, sociological, canonical). These methods, which all have
value, have been developed in many different contexts of the Church�s life, which need to be recalled and respected.

The Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church recognise the baptism each confers.

Anglicans and Catholics agree that the full participation in the Eucharist, together with Baptism and Confirmation, completes the sacramental process of Christian initiation.

We agree that the Eucharist is the memorial (anamnesis) of the crucified and risen Christ, of the entire work of reconciliation God has accomplished in him.

Anglicans and Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

While Christ is present and active in a variety of ways in the entire eucharistic celebration, so that his presence is not limited to the consecrated elements, the bread and wine are not empty signs: Christ�s body and blood become really present and are really given in these
elements.

We agree that the Eucharist is the �meal of the Kingdom�, in which the Church gives thanks for all the signs of the coming Kingdom.

We agree that those who are ordained have responsibility for the ministry of Word and Sacrament.

Roman Catholics and Anglicans share this agreement concerning the ministry of the whole people of God, the distinctive ministry of the ordained, the threefold ordering of the ministry, its apostolic origins, character and succession, and the ministry of oversight.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that councils can be recognised as authoritative when they express the common faith and mind of the Church, consonant with Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition.

Primacy and collegiality are complementary dimensions of episcope, exercised within the life of the whole Church. (Anglicans recognise the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury in precisely this way.)

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the ministry of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate is in accordance with Christ�s will for the Church and an essential element for maintaining it in unity and truth. Anglicans rejected the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the sixteenth century. Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a re-united Church.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics both believe in the indefectibility of the Church, that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth.

Both Anglicans and Catholics acknowledge that private confession before a priest is a means of grace and an effective declaration of the forgiveness of Christ in response to repentance.

Throughout its history the Church has sought to be faithful in following Christ�s command to heal, and this has inspired countless acts of ministry in medical and hospital care. Alongside this physical ministry, both traditions have continued to exercise the sacramental ministry of anointing.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics share similar ways of moral reasoning.

Both Communions speak of marriage as a covenant and a vocation to holiness and see it in the order of creation as both sign and reality of God�s faithful love.

All generations of Anglicans and Roman Catholics have called the Virgin Mary �blessed�.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that it is impossible to be faithful to Scripture without giving due attention to the person of Mary.

Genuine faith is more than assent: it is expressed in action.

Given our mutual recognition of one another�s baptism, a number of practical initiatives are possible. Local churches may consider developing joint programmes for the formation of families when they present children for baptism, as well as preparing common catechetical resources for use in baptismal and confirmation preparation and in Sunday Schools.

Given the significant extent of our common understanding of the Eucharist, and the central importance of the Eucharist to our faith, we encourage attendance at each other�s Eucharists, respecting the different disciplines of our churches.

We also encourage more frequent joint non-eucharistic worship, including celebrations of faith, pilgrimages, processions of witness (e.g. on Good Friday), and shared public liturgies on significant occasions. We encourage those who pray the daily office to explore how celebrating daily prayer together can reinforce their common mission.

We welcome the growing Anglican custom of including in the prayers of the faithful a prayer for the Pope, and we invite Roman Catholics to pray regularly in public for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leaders of the Anglican Communion.

We note the close similarities of Anglican and Roman Catholic lectionaries which make it possible to foster joint bible study groups based upon the Sunday lectionary.

There are numerous theological resources that can be shared, including professional staff, libraries, and formation and study programmes for clergy and laity.

Wherever possible, ordained and lay observers can be invited to attend each other�s synodical and collegial gatherings and conferences.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a rich heritage regarding the place of religious orders in ecclesial life. There are religious communities in both of our Communions that trace their origins to the same founders (e.g. Benedictines and Franciscans). We encourage the
continuation and strengthening of relations between Anglican and Catholic religious orders, and acknowledge the particular witness of monastic communities with an ecumenical vocation.

There are many areas where pastoral and spiritual care can be shared. We acknowledge the benefit derived from many instances of spiritual direction given and received by Anglicans to Catholics and Catholics to Anglicans.

We recommend joint training where possible for lay ministries (e.g. catechists, lectors, readers, teachers, evangelists). We commend the sharing of the talents and resources of lay ministers, particularly between local Anglican and Roman Catholic parishes. We note the
potential for music ministries to enrich our relations and to strengthen the Church�s outreach to the wider society, especially young people.

We encourage joint participation in evangelism, developing specific strategies to engage with those who have yet to hear and respond to the Gospel.

We invite our churches to consider the development of joint Anglican/Roman Catholic church schools, shared teacher training programmes and contemporary religious education curricula for use in our schools.

END OF EXCERPTS regarding stated agreements
Below are excerpts recognizing DIVERGENCES regarding: 1) papal and teaching authority 2) the recognition and validity of Anglican Orders and ministries 3) ordination of women 4) eucharistic sharing 5) obligatory confession 6) divorce and remarriage 7) the precise moment a human person is formed 8) methods of birth control 9) homosexual activity and 10) human sexuality.

Thanks,
JB

quote:

BEGIN EXCERPTS regarding stated disagreements:

While already we can affirm together that universal primacy, as a visible focus of unity, is �a gift to be shared�, able to be �offered and received even before our Churches are in full communion�, nevertheless serious questions remain for Anglicans regarding the nature and
jurisdictional consequences of universal primacy.

There are further divergences in the way in which teaching authority in the life of the Church is exercised and the authentic tradition is discerned.

In his Apostolic Letter on Anglican Orders, Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII ruled against the validity of Anglican Orders. The question of validity remains a fundamental obstacle to the recognition of Anglican ministries by the Catholic Church. In the light of the
agreements on the Eucharist and ministry set out both in the ARCIC statements and in the official responses of both Communions, there is evidence that we have a common intention in ordination and in the celebration of the Eucharist. This awareness would have to be part of any fresh evaluation of Anglican Orders.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics hold that there is an inextricable link between Eucharist and Ministry. Without recognition and reconciliation of ministries, therefore, it is not possible to realise the full impact of our common understanding of the Eucharist.

The twentieth century saw much discussion across the whole Christian family on the question of the ordination of women. The Roman Catholic Church points to the unbroken tradition of the Church in not ordaining women. Indeed, Pope John Paul II expressed the conviction that �the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women�. After careful reflection and debate, a growing number of Anglican Churches have
proceeded to ordain women to the presbyterate and some also to the episcopate.

Churches of the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church therefore have different disciplines for eucharistic sharing. The Catholic Church does not permit the Catholic faithful to receive the Eucharist from, nor Catholic clergy to concelebrate with, those whose
ministry has not been officially recognised by the Catholic Church. Anglican provinces regularly admit to communion baptised believers who are communicant members from other Christian communities.

Despite our common moral foundations, serious disagreements on specific issues exist, some of which have emerged in the long period of our separation.

Anglicans and Catholics have a different practice in respect of private confession. �The Reformers� emphasis on the direct access of the sinner to the forgiving and sustaining Word of God led Anglicans to reject the view that private confession before a priest was obligatory, although they continued to maintain that it was a wholesome means of grace, and made provision for it in the Book of Common Prayer for those with an unquiet and sorely troubled conscience.� Anglicans express this discipline in the short formula �all may, none must, some should�.

Whilst both Communions recognise that marriage is for life, both have also had to recognise the failure of many marriages in reality. For Roman Catholics, it is not possible however to dissolve the marriage bond once sacramentally constituted because of its indissoluble
character, as it signifies the covenantal relationship of Christ with the Church. On certain grounds, however, the Catholic Church recognises that a true marriage was never contracted and a declaration of nullity may be granted by the proper authorities. Anglicans have been willing to recognise divorce following the breakdown of a marriage, and in recent years, some Anglican Churches have set forth circumstances in which they are prepared to allow
partners from an earlier marriage to enter into another marriage.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics share the same fundamental teaching concerning the mystery of human life and the sanctity of the human person, but they differ in the way in which they develop and apply this fundamental moral teaching. Anglicans have no agreed teaching concerning the precise moment from which the new human life developing in the womb is to be given the full protection due to a human person. Roman Catholic teaching is that the human embryo must be treated as a human person from the moment of conception and rejects all direct abortion.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that there are situations when a couple would be morally justified in avoiding bringing children into being. They are not agreed on the method by which the responsibility of parents is exercised.

Catholic teaching holds that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered and always objectively wrong. Strong tensions have surfaced within the Anglican Communion because of serious challenges from within some Provinces to the traditional teaching on human
sexuality which was expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

In the discussions on human sexuality within the Anglican Communion, and between it and the Catholic Church, stand anthropological and biblical hermeneutical questions which need to be addressed.

END OF EXCERPTS regarding stated disagreements
Teasing out further nuances between dogma, doctrine and discipline and learning from the via media Ormond Rush writes, in Determining Catholic Orthodoxy: Monologue or Dialogue (PACIFICA 12 (JUNE 1999):
quote:
The patristic scholar Rowan Williams speaks of �orthodoxy as always lying in the future�.
Rush continues:
quote:
Mathematicians talk of an asymptotic line that continually approaches a given curve but does not meet it at a finite distance. Somewhat like those two lines, ressourcement and aggiornamento never meet; the meeting point always lies ahead of the church as it moves forward in history. Orthodoxy, in that sense, lies always in the future. Christian truth is eschatological truth. The church must continually wait on the Holy Spirit to lead it to the fullness of truth. Ressourcement and aggiornamento will only finally meet at that point when history ends at the fullness of time. �For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.� (1 Cor 13:12)
In that Pacifica article, Rush draws distinctions between: 1) revelation as propositional, where faith is primarily assent and revelation as personalist , where faith is the response of the whole person in loving self-surrender to God; 2) verbal orthodoxy and lived orthopraxy; 3) the Christological and pneumatological; 4) hierarchical ecclesiology and communio ecclesiology; and 5) monologic notion of authority evoking passive obedience and dialogic notion of authority evoking active obedience.

Rush describes the extremes of on one hand, 1) dogmatic maximalism , where all beliefs are given equal weight; 2) magisterial maximalism , where the ecclesial magisterium, alone, has access to the Holy Spirit;3) dogmatic ahistoricism , where God's meaning and will are fixed and clear to be seen; and, on the other hand, 1) dogmatic minimalism , where all dogmatic statements are equally unimportant; 2) magisterial minimalism , where communal guidance in interpretation is superfluous; 3) dogmatic historicism , with an unmitigated relativist position regarding human knowledge.

Rush then describes and commends a VIA MEDIA between the positions.

He notes that the church does not call the faithful that we may believe in dogma, doctrine and disciplines but, rather, to belief in God .

He describes how statements vary in relationship to the foundation of faith vis a vis a Hierarchy of Truth and thus have different weight: to be believed as divinely revealed; to be held as definitively proposed; or as nondefinitively taught and requiring obsequium religiosum (see discussion below).

The faithful reception of revelation requires interplay between the different "witnesses" of revelation: scripture, tradition, magisterium, sensus fidelium, theological scholarship, including reason (philosophy) and experience (biological & behavioral sciences, personal testimonies, etc).

Rush thus asks:
quote:
"How does the Holy Spirit guarantee orthodox traditioning of the Gospel? According to Dei Verbum 8b, 'the help of the Holy Spirit' is manifested in the activity of three distinguishable yet overlapping groups of witnesses to the Gospel: the magisterium, the whole people of God, and theologians. The Holy Spirit guides each group of witnesses in different ways and to different degrees; but no one alone has possession of the Spirit of Truth."
Rush further asks:
quote:
"The determination of orthodoxy needs to address questions concerning the issue of consensus in each of these three authorities. What constitutes a consensus among theologians and how is it to be ascertained? What constitutes a consensus among the one billion Catholics throughout the world and how is it to be ascertained? What constitutes a collegial consensus among the bishops of the world with the pope, and how is that consensus to be ascertained?"
As for obsequium religiosum, from http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/orsy3_2.asp
quote:

"Accordingly, the duty to offer obsequium may bind to respect, or to submission�or to any other attitude between the two."

"When the council spoke of religious obsequium it meant an attitude toward the church which is rooted in the virtue of religion, the love of God and the love of his church. This attitude in every concrete case will be in need of further specification, which could be 'respect', or could be 'submission,' depending on the progress the church has made in clarifying its own beliefs. ... [W]e can speak of obsequium fidei (one with the believing church holding firm to a doctrine) ... [or] an obsequium religiosum (one with the searching church, working for clarification)."
 
Posts: 2881 | Registered: 25 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Great topic and a very substantive opener, JB. I do empathize with the temptation to change traditions, but, like you, have decided to bloom where planted, even though misgivings in a number of areas have bothered me for years.

I found it significant that the agreements between Catholics and Anglicans pertain to the issues I would consider most relevant to Christian faith, while those where disagreements exist pertain, for the most part, to matters of Holy Orders, sacramental theology, and human sexuality. These, too, are important issues, but not as important as those where agreements exist. There is a hierarchy of truth in Catholicism, though one will not find this enumerated anywhere. Still, the fact remains that not all teachings are equally important, which mitigates against a "Catholic fundamentalism." Unfortunately, there has been a growing number of such during the past two decades, and their presence on the web is quite strong.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Unfortunately, there has been a growing number of such [Catholic fundamentalists] during the past two decades, and their presence on the web is quite strong. [/qb]
And, I understand, their presence in seminaries is also quite strong? due to any number of sociological and other reasons? such as a reaction to postmodernism?

See Nearing Retirement, Priests of the 60�s Fear Legacy Is Lost
quote:
The Archbishop suggested that the retrenchment answered the yearnings of Catholics today. "The younger generation needs more structures, clarity and guidance," wrote Rembert G. Weakland.
quote:
According to periodic nationwide surveys of thousands of priests by Dean R. Hoge, a professor at Catholic University in Washingtonworking at the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago, since the 1980�s the priesthood has grown increasingly conservative on theological questions like celibacy in the priesthood and the ordination of women. Dr. Hoge�s research shows that the youngest and oldest priests share similar views, while the generation of Vatican II stands isolated between them.
 
Posts: 2881 | Registered: 25 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Right, JB. The younger priests do seem to be very much on the conservative side, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But as one of those older, Vatican II - era priests told me recently, "If only they at least loved the people!" Many do, of course, but I don't think it bodes well for clerical leadership unto a more progressive Church.

Seminaries are also more conservative and focused on apologetics and orthodoxy than they were a couple of decades ago. Pendulum swinging. Hard to see where the movement the other way will come from. Catholicism is so maligned by evangelicals and fundamentalists that something of a retrenchment reaction among Catholic teachers has set in.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Right, JB. The younger priests do seem to be very much on the conservative side, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. [/qb]
Yes, not necessarily. I like to think of liberal and conservative, progressive and traditionalist, in terms of charisms, something analogous to pilgrims and settlers. And there is room for the via media, the middle path, something analogous to bridge-builders, which might be the loneliest and most difficult for, as Richard Rohr observes, they get walked on by folks coming from both directions.

Unfortunately, too much of what we see is better described in terms of maximalism, minimalism and a/historicism. Too many so-called progressives consider essential and core teachings as accidental and peripheral; too many so-called traditionalists consider accidental and peripheral teachings as essential and core. In essentials, unity; in accidentals, diversity; in all things, charity. (attributed to Augustine)
 
Posts: 2881 | Registered: 25 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
johnboy,

My Secret Weapons when I get to feeling they way you
have described are my palm sized copies of The Way to Love by Tony de Mello and The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, John Blofeld's translation. They fir neatly into the shoulder pocket of my leather jacket
and are ideal thought/concept/abstraction stoppers.

A taste:

http://www.geocites.com/lesliebarclay/HuangPo1.html

http://dharmamind.net/HP.htm

http://www.allspirit.co.uk/huangpo.html

You can thought/concept/abstraction stop just as well in an Anglican or Roman church as you can standing out-of-doors or in your home. Smiler

See Awakenings chapter 20, Freedom from Cultural Conditioning by Father Thomas Keating.

shalom, caritas, lennon and norwich, spoonage
 
Posts: 2559 | Registered: 14 June 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<HeartPrayer>
posted
Your top link does not work, Michael.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Jaan
posted Hide Post
This is a great topic for me. I am a person who was tutored in liturgy by the Anglican Communion and for short time left it do to Conservative reaction in the Anglo Catholic community over female ordination only to find myself longing for and coming home to Canterbury because of the way the Episcopal Church practices Hooker's three legged stool and adding the leg of experience. Honestly I do not think functionally I was ever Roman Catholic and would not have been excepted by the new conservative elite because I attended a Vatican 2 hybrid catholic mega church based on the Willow Creek model with sacraments heavily infleunced by Evangelicalism and the Charismatic Renewal. The Priest was always in trouble with the diocese.This left me with a desire to go home to old fashion english liturgy sacraments and the Book of Common Prayer. Much of the new Roman Catholic vernacular liturgy as lost the mystery and transcendence of the mass. This something Anglicans and orthodox are good at. My other reason is I do not feel the need to define everything to the point of splitting hairs. I belleve that Rome tends to dogma heavy. the fact I read Origin and plagesius and my theology is semi pelagenist though excepted in the pale of orthodoxy is heavily debated against by the modernist Thomist and Augustinian scholars. The Church of England allows for greater freedom of thought something very attractive to me while keeping its catholicity.
So here i am an Anglo Catholic who has tasted the bark of Rome and came home proving again the grass is not greener on the other side.
 
Posts: 24 | Location: Woodstock IL | Registered: 24 August 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

ShalomPlace.com    Shalom Place Community    Shalom Place Discussion Groups  Hop To Forum Categories  General Discussion Forums  Hop To Forums  Christian Morality and Theology    Discipline, Doctrine &amp; Dogma in Roman-Anglican Catholic Dialogue