I have been trying to post on this entry a while but I have been on the phone this afternoon having a delightful discussion with a facebook friend. Thank you for that! While on the phone Rubat in a comment in the blog entry below asks what my thoughts are about the Bishop of Rochester's comments concerning unity looking towards the Pope. What are my thoughts? Well, simply put, I agree. Where else is unity to be found in our day or perhaps in any day. I think many Catholic-minded Anglicans have seen this for a long time. As a member of a FiF parish and a member of SSC that is one of the stated goals of our existence. I think this question is coming to head quicker than many expected due to the speed at which information is before us as a result of our smaller world due to technology. There is no secret that I have struggled deeply the last few months about ecclesiological and moral issues and how authority fits into those questions. These questions still go on in my head but the question of S. Peter's primacy is no longer one of those questions. He is the source for unity in my mind and I would tend to agree with the Bishop of Rochester here. Ruth Gledhill reports the following on her blog having come from the Bishop of Rochester.I think for many this will come to be accepted and recognised as the ministry for unity and many will find different ways of making it a reality. What I believe is most important is for each individual to work this out for themselves theologically and practically. Historically it is true that the Bishop of Rome has had and continues to have this ministry. Now, the question is, 'how do all of us accept that ministry?'And there was also, of course, the question of how these gifts would be received by the Church.
He said the Roman Catholic Church was not monolithic. There was plenty of room for diversity within it. But he described an 'ecclesial deficit' in Anglicanism which it had not yet addressed properly. It has to do with confessing the faith together, decision-making, common discipline, a universal ministry for maintaining unity. The temptation for Anglicans, he said, was to invent such a universal ministry.
But he warned against this.
'Robert Runcie used to say he did not want the Archbishop of Canterbury to be turned into a Pope because one Pope was sufficient.
'What we need is first of all to recognise that there is a proper universal ministry for unity, that it is the Bishop of Rome that exercises that historic ministry for today, and to find a way for all Christians to accept that ministry.'
7 comments:
He is right, of course; however, "finding a way for all Christians to accept that ministry" is a two-way street. Peter, too, must be "converted," as our Lord said: "Peter, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren."
Specifically, the major stumbling block is the First Vatican Council and attendant ways of viewing the Petrine ministry in the universal Church.
When I read things like this, I don't know whether to cry or to smile.
It seems we are so close to unity... and so far.
Prayer, mortification, and more prayer.
Because this crazy world needs Christian unity now more than ever before.
Sorry FrgregACCA the First Vatican Council and it's dogmatic definition isn't going away. Your scriptural reference, although catchy, has nothing to do with your point, other than confirming our that Lord entrusted the Church to Peter. I, for one, am thankful he did.
Amen, Antonio.
Riley they do have a point, they can not more agree with something that happened at Vatican I if they were not brought in to council. Same thing for the acceptance of all Ecumenical councils after the split from the East.
Until brought in to proper council they will continue to view it as a local council.
What complicates things further in the question of the CoE is that there is the subject of their ordinations, that is their bishops. Unlike the Orthodox their ordinations in many cases are suspect and in many others are null and void.
In case we were ever to takle these questions head on, then I think a Council or local synod would be the way to go, still we are ways away from that.
"Now, the question is, 'how do all of us accept that ministry?'"
That's not the question. There are two questions:
(1) When, if ever, will those Anglicans who keep proclaiming their loyalty to the RC Church and their disaffection from Anglicanism and the C of E in particular have the guts to follow their alleged convictions?
(2) How many will they be?
The answer to (2) depends on (1). The answer to (1) is not at all clear. However, just as 'conservatives' are fed up with the seemingly endless 'listening process', so 'liberals' are fed up with the seemingly endless bleatings of so-called 'Papist Anglicans', who are paid by the C of E, live in nice houses, and in -many cases - have nice wives and nice kids. Theologically, of course, our blessed ABC is right: these things take - and should take - as long as they take (70x7, etc.). Good that at least someone is thinking theologically.
John your question is lacking in a couple of parts.
For one they confess their faith to the "Catholic Church" not to the Roman rite of said Church. Also they accept the universal ministry of Chrit's vicar who is the Pope, the Bishop of Rome descendant of St. Peter to whom the Keys of the Kingdom were given.
The name alone is of the so called "church of England" is an oxymoron of it self for there is but "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." so the Church can not belong to an individual nation but is universal for all nations.
They don't have a disaffection for Anglicanism but rather see the truth that aside and cut off from the universal (Catholic) Church. Christianity can not prosper and much like everything that is man made will grow, wither and die.
As to number 2 as many as God wills.
Post a Comment