The recent posting below from the Bishop of Chichester, John Hind, has brought me to think more deeply about words that were spoken at the FiF National Assembly on 14 February concerning the seeking of communion over provision. There is a lot within Bishop Hind's writing here that has allowed me to think and ask questions about the local Eucharistic community and the universal. Particularly, these questions come in light of a theological notion of 'provision' given for irreconcilable positions theologically. Actually, for me, it forces me to ask the question 'what does it mean to be Catholic?'Can the local survive without being in communion with the universal? How is the local amplified by being in communion with the universal? Let me first of all say that the local Eucharistic assembly has the presence of Christ fully in their midst when they meet to offer Mass. We hear it said that there is something 'missing' by Catholic Anglicans not being in communion with the See of Peter; what is missing? Why won't congregationalism survive?
Father Aidan Nichols in his book on Ratzinger's thought describes for us the answer to this as it is in the heart of Lumen Gentium. For Ratzinger, says Nichols, such a union [universally] is not simply an optional extra but is actually 'constitutive of the being of the local church.' Without entering into this union the local church faces ecclesial extinction according to Ratzinger's thought. This is something we Anglo-Catholics need to think seriously about at the deepest theological level after reflecting on the words of Bishop Hind's remarks. The local has to be legitimately constituted in order to flourish. How can this flourishing possibly happen within such fractured ecclesial positions? There will be no such thing as episcopal collegiality in a 'provisional' church and if there is no episcopal collegiality is there a local church? This, according to Nichols, strikes at the heart of a liturgical totality. This must be discussed and thought through very carefully in my humble opinion.
To cross the threshold of the local horizon then, is in Ratzinger's words, to arrive at the common content of Catholic unity. Is there anything between being a member and a non-member of this universal community? The question for me , if answered in the affirmative, is what is this 'in between?'
I write this as an open theological question to any and all who would like to contribute to serious discussion of this issue. The practical framework for me is the notion of labouring for hours on 'provision' for ACs within the hermeneutical grid that is implied within the questions and thoughts written above. These are serious questions and not put out here to simply take up space. For me, this has serious ecclesial issues in how the C of E thinks of herself as a church in membership with the universal. On a large scale, is there a serious danger of ecclesial extinction by continuing on this road? Allow me to end this open question with a quotation supplied by Nichols from John Zizioulas.
I can have the one Lord only in the unity that he himself is--in unity with the others who are also his body and who, in the Eucharist, must always become it anew.
9 comments:
Fr Jeffrey, thank for this thought provoking post. I am far from qualified to speak on these matters but I have been thinking along similar lines. Your post yesterday quoted Newman as saying that the Church 'merely acts out what she says she is'. God has given her work to do and despite the rupture of the Reformation we still claim apostolic continuity. Quoting Newman again 'If her Clergy be Priests, if they forgive sins, and bring the Son of God upon her altars' then we are justly part of the Universal Church. The C of E has kept the Son of God on the altars of the churches of this land, despite being in exile from Rome.
I think we need to build on that and on the work of ARCIC and IARCCUM 'to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesial communion' where 'a universal primate will exercise leadership in the world and also in both communions'. And I think next year's visit by Pope Benedict provides a wonderful opportunity to work towards that conclusion.
Is not this the crux of the problem - We may have had liturgies impoverished in their articulation of the sacrifice of the mass and erroneous teachers but we have claimed sacraments on the back of valid orders - and it is ORDER which is under assault. If you seek a last ditch look about you.
Nebuly, maybe I'm thick but I am not quite sure what you are getting at. In the least it is not all together clear to me.
Is there anything between being a member and a non-member of this universal community?
Not now - but there has been in the past. In 1964 the unique example was explicitly identified by a most high authority. It was was called the 'Anglican Communion' and was referred to in these cordial terms by the decree Unitatis Redintegratio:
Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.
Since that date, however, that special position, albeit also a peculiar and ambiguous one, has been decisively, terminally and irrevocably lost - for reasons which have been pointed out by Nebuly, above.
Ah, yes indeed. ARCIC as we knew it is over. Now, the fragments left over need to find a way to seek out reunion and communion. That is what this post is about asking.
Is another discussion more important than Unity?
Forgive me Father if I was again opaque: Gengulphus has it precisely.
Seems like a question of how to survive in an erastian system which is rather hostile to the Apostolic church?
Rome's monarchism solves this problem. However, any tradiional English claim of orthodoxy or autocephalousy will have to be given up. If one doesn't stay in Canterbury, single parishes or even bishops will have little basis to negotiate. Rome will set the rules for any disporia.
"Can the local survive without being in communion with the universal?"
Saint Paul, in the opening verses of both first and second Corinthians, does not refer to "the Corinthian church" or some such. Rather, he refers to "the [one, Catholic] Church of God which is at Corinth." In other words, what makes a local church Catholic is its being a location of the universal. It cannot be its own thing.
As I've said before, what causes me to tremble is the fact that I confect the sacrament of unity while I am in schism.
I wrote on this, following Michael Ramsey, in light of our present difficulties, here:
http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/features/evangelical_catholicism/
Post a Comment