Deus, qui errata corrigis, et dispersa congregas, et congregata conservas: quaesumus, super populum Christianum tuae unionis gratiam clementer infunde; ut divisione reiecta, vero pastori Ecclesiae tuae se uniens, tibi digne valeat famulari. Per Dominum nostrum. (Oratio ad tollendum Schisma).
O God, you who correct errors, bring together the dispersed, and keep together the congregated: we beseech you; kindly pour forth the grace of union over the Christian people; so that, having rejected division, and uniting themselves to the true shepherd of your Church, they may be well to serve you worthily. Through the Lord. (Collect for the taking away of Schism).
I have always had sympathy for Ecumenism (understood to mean efforts on behalf of the Pope of Rome to reconcile stray Christians to the Catholic Church - I have no time whatsoever for prayer-meetings, inter-communion and other such relativistic and pernicious nonsense), since the schisms which have severed the various churches from the One True Church are manifestly a source of grief to every godly and Catholic soul. But Ecumenism is a very complicated matter, and I doubt that many ''churches-together'' groups actually consider what a united Church would be like. Below are a list of musings about what I would consider to be the ''ideal'' United Church. I shall go through each of the Communions in turn (devoting a paragraph to each) and last of all give a ''synopsis'' of the stuff that we could concede. Any comments, queries, protests etc in the Comment box please.
The Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Great Orthodox Church evidently deserves pride of place. These Christians, with their long and pious (if rather fossilized) Tradition will have to do the following: accept all the Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Church as binding in all that pertains to dogmata of Faith. They will not have to insert the Filioque into their own Creeds, since this is not part of the tradition (with a small t) of their Church, nor adopt Western Canon Law, but they will have to accept that the Filioque is a dogma of Faith as defined by the Council of Florence (liturgically speaking, the Credo at Mass is merely the Symbol of Faith, and no Creed is a compendium of all doctrine anyway - the Creeds say nothing about the Sacraments for example), and their catechisms will of course teach accordingly. They will have to accept the Primacy of Jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff as defined by the Vatican Council as pious and apostolic teaching. The venerable Liturgies of the Eastern Church will remain unchanged and certainly unLatinized, except that the name of the Pope will be restored to the diptychs. They will, though, adopt the Gregorian Kalendar, and there will be an investigation into personal sanctity and orthodoxy of the lives of their many ''saints'' (the host of Emporers for example, most famously Constantine I, a pagan his whole life, then baptised on his deathbed by an Arian bishop). This last point is especially complicated, since what I am asking them to do is anathematize their own saints...Perhaps in recompense for this the West could adopt some famous post-Schism Eastern Saints into her own Kalendar (such as Seraphim of Sarov, the famous Russian mystic). Ideally, the various autocephalous churches (an Eastern innovation) will be dissolved and brought again under the ancient Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Local churches will, of course, retain the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in their own local tongues. The Patriarchs will be made Cardinals and can partake in the Conclave to elect the Pope (will this privilege extend to other Bishops and Metropolitans, I wonder?) The Patriarch of Constantinople can retain the title ''Ecumenical Patriarch.''
The non-Chalcedonian Churches.
I know very little about these Christians, and I think that it would be better if they first reconciled with the Orthodox Church beforehand. They will, of course, accept the Christological Definition of Chalcedon (451) and all other Ecumenical Councils of the Church, the Primacy of the Pope etc. All the rest is applicable as above.
The Anglican Communion.
Anglicans will have to accept all Ecumenical Councils of the Church, as well as fully submit to the doctrines of the Catholic faith. They will recognise the Primacy of Jurisdiction of the Pope as defined by the Vatican Council (the writ of the Bishop of Rome does in fact run in England too!) They will adopt the Sarum Use (in Cranmerian English if they prefer this - English is not a liturgical language, but then is Church Slavonic?) As to the Book of Common Prayer...this was composed by a genius, but a genius with a fiercely anti-Roman (and therefore, reprobate) mind, so I am not sure how to treat this. I have always looked with suspicion upon ''Latinized'' BCP services, just as I have looked with suspicion upon Western-Rite Orthodox Masses, with an inserted Epiklesis and left out Filioque. The ancestral churches of England are to be restored to what they were, insofar as this is possible, and so orders are to be sent out for the rebuilding of Rood Screens, the carving of statues, the painting of sacred images, the building of Altars etc. The Sees of Canterbury and York are to be restored to what they once were, and all Dioceses in England and Wales are to be shared on both the Catholic and Anglican sides (but they will keep their respective bishops, insofar as this is possible). The Archbishops of Canterbury and York will be made Cardinals of the Church and will therefore partake in the Conclave to elect the Pope; although they need not go to Rome to receive the Palium or Biretta but will be consecrated in their own respective Cathedrals by the Pope's Legate.
Other Protestants.
Other Protestants are to be assumed into the current Anglican Communion and are to be treated as Anglicans. They will, of course, do all of the above and repudiate their heresy. They will by no means be allowed to retain their current services of worship but like the Anglicans will adopt the Sarum Use.
On our part...
The Old Rite will be fully restored to the liturgical life of the Church in every aspect (Kalendar, Books etc). Bishops Conferences will no longer have the authority to tamper with the Kalendar (transferring Feasts to nearest Sundays etc). The Church will adopt the revised Good Friday prayers. All Latin Rite priests will be well-versed in the Latin language. The role of the Deacon will be enlarged to match the Deacons of the Eastern Churches. The Minor Orders will be restored, as well as the Subdiaconate, and these Orders will be made permanent if so-desired. Popes will again be crowned rather than ''inaugurated'' and representatives of all the churches will be present (Patriarchs of the Eastern churches as well as the Archbishops of York and Canterbury). Popes need not be Cardinals.
I realise that I have left a lot unsaid. Anything that I have missed out, please let me know in the comment box.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
FOSSILIZED? What do you mean "FOSSILIZED"?
ReplyDeleteMatthew, the Orthodox Church have had little or no development in their liturgy, theology or even local custom since the 8th Ecumenical Synod (even if they claim to be the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils). They have no Religious Orders, no Missionaries; in essence, their Tradition (which is itself worthy and venerable) is static, stuck in the 9th century - which is markedly unlike the Catholic Tradition which is alive and has developed in externals over the centuries. Some aspects of this Tradition I do not always agree with (I do not like Low Mass for example) but others I find a source of Grace and solace in this Vale of Tears.
ReplyDeleteYes, well, development in the Catholic Liturgy, in theology, the over abundance of religious orders has done wonders for you, hasn't it? shall we start with liturgy? Or how about all those dying religious orders? Let talk about all your theologians that have sewn confusion in the people so that they don't confess, don't go to Mass, believe in contraception, have abortions at an ever increasing rate..... yes. the Roman Catholic Church has truly progressed - toward being 'OF THE WORLD' not just "IN THE WORLD". Give it a rest.
ReplyDeleteUniatism...Good God. Christ is supreme for Christ is King- he did confer the Keeping to Peter not the Crown itself. The Steward is not the King, and still less his image.Rome does not have a clear record either. What do you make of the promise of the Holy Spirit? Not through some Roman pipette. Unity not uniatism. Piety not pride. The entanglement of the politics and theology in the issue of papal supremacy is sufficient ground to question it. Compromise with the world. At least the Orthodox Church has had no Vatican II or Hans Kung or Bugnini or Schillebeeckx- a bit rich coming from us to tell them about it.
ReplyDeletePatricius - forgive me: I hadn't meant to respond to a post clearly intended for the gallery, but I can't help registering my amusement. Yours is an attitude fairly typical of traditional-minded RC's who, having flirted sentimentally with the East, discover at the first serious encounter, to their astonishment and indignation, that the attraction is not reciprocated. Like vain teenagers whose suit has been spurned, they retreat into a contemptuous and accusatory sulk: any stupid girl who refuses to fancy one, is obviously perverse and abnormal.
ReplyDeleteWhat an invitation! Where do I sign? It's like receiving a summons from an impenitent prodigal son, outlining the conditions under which one might be premitted to join him in the pig-pen.
To play devil's advocate, perhaps the Orthodox liturgy doesn't need to develop! Maybe they got it spot on? Every time I attend the Divine Liturgy it has always 'transported' me to heaven! This can't be said however of the 'variety' of Catholic liturgies I've attended.
ReplyDeleteJust to pick up a single point from Matthew, religious orders are not meant to be around for thousands of years. Some are established for a particular purpose. Sometimes that original purpose changes due to demographic change. I know a religious sister friend of mine whose order is 'dying out'. She is quite content about it as she feels her order has served its purpose.
Patricius
ReplyDeleteYour reply to Matthew, in addition to being factually false ("no development in their liturgy, theology or even local custom since the 8th Ecumenical Synod") is a priceless illustration ("stuck in the 9th century") of the inability of conservative RC's to extricate themselves from a fundamentally Modernist mindset. The idea that we cease to have a history the moment we cease to be part of your history is simply risible.
I wasted half my life in the RC "Traditionalist" movement. I promise you - I never knew the meaning of "living tradition" or living liturgy before experiencing in Holy Orthodoxy.
Thank you all for your comments, which are very interesting.
ReplyDeleteFGSA, no sincere Catholic denies that Christ is the supreme head of the Church. However, we understand that He give to St Peter the power of binding and loosing, the preogative to strengthen and look after the brethren (the Bishops of course) and the charge of feeding His sheep. Indeed, the Orthodox Church has had no Vatican II - lucky them! But Vatican II is not the be-all and end-all of the liturgical problems the Western Church is riddled with. I would say that this started off with Popes getting above themselves, failing to understand their own very humble ministry as the servant not the arbiter of the Deposit of Faith, and upstart Modernists beneath them being let loose to do as and what they felt like with the Liturgy. Change because quite simply they could change; and they did. This is not solely limited to the 20th century of course - the Tridentine reforms themselves were significant, the loss of so many Sequences, and later on Urban VIII and the Breviary hymns. Popes are infallible when they speak on matters of Faith ex cathedra, but this does not mean that they are any less human, even less that when they decide to do some things we find disagreeable that these acts themselves are to be treated as infallible. The current Holy Father has a clearer understanding of his own role as supreme Pastor than most recent Popes. As for Modernist theologians, I thought ''Kallistos'' Ware was a bit of a Modernist, or was at least considered so in certain circles? I may be wrong of course.
Moretben, your comments were especially interesting! I didn't like your allusion to the ''pig-pen'' and I have never derided the Orthodox Church itself, which is venerable. I just would that her sons were not so obstinate in their schism. Naturally, there are many aspects of the Catholic Church that I find tiresome (the New Rite, the all-too-easy-to-find Modernist priests, Low Mass to give just three examples) but these are no such reasons for me to leave this ancient Communion, which is the True Church. As Tolkien said, loyalty is put to the test when we are given so many reasons to abandon it, and he said this as he witnessed with great sadness the rapid crumbling of that great Liturgy which he loved most ardently.
CWA, I think it depends which church of the Orthodox Church you go to. I have heard Greek chant and it sounds like wailing; Russian chant on the other hand is most moving. I had never considered the Religious Orders from that perspective before - I think I shall view the disappearance of some of them now with not so great a sadness as before (although again this depends which Order you have in mind - some I will be glad to see the back of!).
Patricius
ReplyDeleteThank you for your gracious response. My reason for leaving the Roman Catholic Church was not weariness with the struggle: I could have carried the burden of heart-sinking apparatus required to square her perennial dysfunctionality with her pristine claims indefinitely if I believed she was the "True Church".
Each of these two communions claims to represent normative, ancient, Apostolic, Catholic Christianity in its essential fullness and demonstrable continuity. I don't believe that on the basis of history, theology, spirituality or anything else, either an alien from Mars with no priori axe to grind or partisan preference, or any Christian from the century of St Gregory the Great, would have the slightest difficulty in deciding which claim was authentic. I assume you also believe this. We can't both be right, but you really and truly need to move beyond these facile imputations of "pride" "politics" and bad faith generally, together with the vacuuous charge of being "stuck in the 9th century" and recognise that we are not simply an Eastern-flavoured Roman Catholicism, minus the Pope. How we understand ourselves is not how you understand us. How we understand you is not how you understand yourselves. How you understand yourselves is not how we understand you.
Our differences are far, far deeper than you suspect. I suggest you forget about the Orthodox and the idea that we represent some kind of "missing lung" and concentrate very hard and very honestly on why Roman Catholicism has shattered into fragments twice in the second millenium. Just for starters.
PS: two modern manifestations of "heart-sinking apparatus":
ReplyDeleteThe Hermeneutic of Continuity - a strategy for restoring appearances, preserving reputations and avoiding the basic condition of any genuine renewal: repentance.
Catholic "Traditionalism" - a strategy for avoiding the right conclusions about absolutely everything.
Moretben, many thanks for your comment again. I think it is sad that you left the Catholic Church, although you clearly do not regret doing so. One consolation, though, is that you didn't join the Protestants!
ReplyDeleteWe both believe, as you say, that we represent the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. However, we have differences of belief about certain points, chief among these being that of authority - how this is understood, exercised and lived out in an ecclesiastical and pastoral context. I think that the difference of belief involves a severe kind of prejudice against the rights and privileges of ''old'' Rome; although you probably think this is a mere red herring.
I think that the differences are not insuperable. The Papal ministry can be understood by the Orthodox, only if they will listen. Recognition of the Pope would not threaten your Liturgies, or your rights. As I have said, the Pope has a different relationship to every Christian. To Catholics in England (such as I), he is Pope and Patriarch. To Catholics in the East he is merely Pope. I am myself convinced of the Papal ''claims'' - I think they are pious and apostolic. Popes themselves are quite another matter, and I need not tell you that there have been many (too many) Popes who have poorly understood their ministry.
I know the ''doctrinal'' differences that divide us, but are they really as significant as you claim? To me, the double procession of the Holy Ghost is logical, since how else can He be, as a distinct Hypostasis, understood as differing from the Son? Naturally, this is a complex matter, hardly to be fairly treated in a blog comment, but what else is there? Purgatorial fire, the Immaculate Conception? I think the Liturgy is more important than these; and I agree that the Catholic Church needs to ''sort things out'' but I infer from your concluding paragraph a veiled way of saying: ''you know deep down the shortcomings of your church. It is intellectually dishonest to remain Catholic. Come over to Orthodoxy!''
But I would not leave the Church unless I ceased believing - and to me, leaving the ancient Roman Church would mean leaving the alliegance of Our Lord.
Name some of the deep-dividing differences and perhaps we can continue this by email? By the way, do you like Tolkien? I'd be interested to know what you think of his work, since this blog is dedicated to him.
Purgatorial fire, the Immaculate Conception? I think the Liturgy is more important than these...
ReplyDeleteAn unfortunate high-Anglican attitude...
Greek chants warmed on me :) there is something quite thunderous about it... it reaches deep down into the chaos which is often found in us, a crying out to God if you will.
ReplyDeletePatricius
ReplyDeleteHere's a kind of Orthodox version of your "invitation", from the excellent Fr Tom Hopko:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php
I'm very happy to continue our conversation by email, if you wish - thanks for the invitation. Leaving the "big ticket" issues (filioque, Vatican One, etc) on one side for the moment, what we need to understand is that "communion", koinonia is not a legal status. It's a description of something existing - a common faith, a common heart, a common mind; a profound mutual recognition in Christ that presupposes, at the deepest level, an unimpeded, unqualified mutual love and common understanding of how the Faith is realised and lived in the Church. We do not have it, or anything like it at present; and even if the "big ticket" issues were somehow to be resolved tomorrow, it would nevertheless take generations to recover that mutual recognition, lost over 1200 years during which our approaches to everything - how theology is pursued, how the Mysteries are understood, the meaning and force of Tradition; spirituality, ascetical struggle, and our quite different understandings of the nature and constitution of the Church herself, and how we are saved within her, have drastically diverged.
"Communion" cannot be delivered by signatures of hierarchs on pieces of paper. Roger Mahoney and Kieron Conry are not going to wake up Orthodox one morning because a Pope and Patriarch signed a document the night before. Meanwhile Rome and her activities are not on the radar of most Orthodox. You are not the centre of our attention. From our perspective, I'm sorry to tell you, the Latin Church appears much as the Anglican communion does to you - a severed limb, long fallen away, succumbing progressively to a whole series of ruinous errors, each productive of predictably dreadful fruits. As a necessary first step to recovering mutual recognisiton these must be definitively repudiated and repented.
....On the point of "development", we certainly don't recognise as Orthodox the understanding popularised by Newman and generally accepted in the West. Naturally, the word "grows" (just as our Liturgy has never ceased to grow, enriched and adapted in every age and location) but it is always the same word "delivered in the beginning". There are no undiscovered Everests in there, and no mirages to be dispersed. Dogma, therefore, does not "develop" at all - only its articulation, much as photograph develops. "Dogmatic Development" (the sapling growing into the mighty oak)is nothing other than the midwife of Modernism.
ReplyDeleteThe factual error of "no change since the 9th century", even in local custom, is easily quashed. Off the top of my head: the rich variety of local uses and adaptations that distinguish the various jurisdictions (BTW the Church of Cyprus has been "autocephalous" since the 3rd Ecumenical Council), many of which did not exist in the 9th Century - some of them not until the 20th. I could list several of these dating from the period of the Turkocratia, from clerical attire to the liturgical placement of the Bishop's throne. Then there's the distinctive development of Russian art and music; the huge expansion in recent centuries of the services and the scriptures in the vernacular languages; the revival of institutions lost in some jurisdictions (e.g. the startsi or Elders, the subject of controversy in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov) - which leads to consideration of the great reflorescence of the Orthodox Patristic tradition in theology in the twentieth century, following the barren years of "captivity" to the Western schools (recognised today as one of the bleakest in the Church's history - the consequence both of Westernising policies of the Tsars, and the attempted extinction of Orthodox learning by the Turks). The 20th Century is the "Palamite Century" (Google St Gregory Palamas)in theology - a glorious recovery of the authentic Patristic Tradition. etc, etc, etc.
PS: Tolkein? Dostoyevsky, any day!
ReplyDeleteA word about "logical". No doubt it's possible to engage in all kinds of metaphysical constructions and speculations that appear "logical". So what? The only thing that matters is what was delivered once and for all to the Saints. Is this the tradition we received from the holy fathers? That's all. Ours is the Faith of the Fishermen, not the philosophers, all of whose feeble categories God transcends utterly.
ReplyDelete