Linear
Rowan Williams hits the ball back across the Tiber. (Main Forum)
by Donatus 
, Brisbane, Tuesday, November 24, 2009, 23:56 (248 days ago)
Now its Rome's turn to respond.
I would dearly love to hear any arguments for why this speech on ecclesiology isn't hitting the nail on the head.
Archbishop of Canterbury's address at a Willebrands Symposium in Rome
--D
lockedRowan Williams hits the ball back across the Tiber.
by PeterR , Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 08:53 (248 days ago) @ Donatus
"The various agreed statements of the churches stress that the Church is a community, in which human beings are made sons and daughters of God, and reconciled both with God and one another. The Church celebrates this through the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion in which God acts upon us to transform us ‘in communion’."
How beautiful! How succinct! Thanks, Archbishop.
Peter
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
Thanks Donatus for the link to the full text of the Archbshop’s address. It is truly amazing that it would take an Anglican (albeit a very good theologian) to remind us of the vision of Vatican II, which established a new principle in ecclesiology by linking it intimately with Trinitarian theology. Just as Jesus is the primordial sacrament of God’s encounter with creation, the Church functions as the sacrament of Christ, and the seven sacraments make the Church.
Archbishop Rowen Williams accurately describes a hierarchy of doctrines tied to the functions of Christ, Church and Ritual. If all Christians can assert that Christ is sacrament of God’s encounter with humanity and all seek to be sacraments of Christ why, then, can we not take the step of joining more closely together in celebrating sacraments and furthering the mission of Christ? Issues relating to legitimacy of Orders are secondary to the primary doctrine of God Incarnate.
A few days back (here) I made mention of the fact that "[a]lready in Western Queenland - as I am sure elsewhere in Australia's 'outback' - the Catholics and Anglicans are sharing the workload - even to the extend of clergy ministering to each other's flocks". I suspect that the little people at the coal face - those poor simple faithful who are always in danger of being "confused" by the changing winds of doctrine - have already intuited what is important and primary.
Ian J. Elmer
I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
Here is my post on this subject from my own blog at The apostolic ministry and the sacramental economy: a second order issue in ecumenism?
_______________________
The Archbishop of Canterbury was in Rome recently, not to meet the pope (which he did, but) to give a speech at the Willebrands Symposium at the Gregorian University as the guest of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.[link="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/11/19/ACNS4668" target="_blank"]The full text of this speech can be found here.[/link]
In this speech, Rowan Williams asks the following questions:
The strong convergence in these agreements about what the Church of God really is, is very striking. The various agreed statements of the churches stress that the Church is a community, in which human beings are made sons and daughters of God, and reconciled both with God and one another. The Church celebrates this through the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion in which God acts upon us to transform us ‘in communion’. More detailed questions about ordained ministry and other issues have been framed in this context.
Therefore the major question that remains is whether in the light of that depth of agreement the issues that still divide us have the same weight – issues about authority in the Church, about primacy (especially the unique position of the pope), and the relations between the local churches and the universal church in making decisions (about matters like the ordination of women, for instance). Are they theological questions in the same sense as the bigger issues on which there is already clear agreement? And if they are, how exactly is it that they make a difference to our basic understanding of salvation and communion? But if they are not, why do they still stand in the way of fuller visible unity? Can there, for example, be a model of unity as a communion of churches which have different attitudes to how the papal primacy is expressed?
The central question is whether and how we can properly tell the difference between ‘second order’ and ‘first order’ issues. When so very much agreement has been firmly established in first-order matters about the identity and mission of the Church, is it really justifiable to treat other issues as equally vital for its health and integrity?”
He attempts to build a case for ecclesial recognition and closer communion upon the "eucharistic" or "communion ecclesiology" that has generally come to be accepted in the dialogues between Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox in the 20th Century:
In broad outline, the picture is something like this. God is eternally a life of threefold communion; and if human persons are to be reconciled to God and restored to the capacity for which they were made, they must be included in that life of communion. The incarnation of God the Son recreates in human persons the possibility of filial relation with the Father, standing in the place of Christ and praying his prayer; and only the Holy Spirit, which animates and directs the entire human identity of the Incarnate Word, can create that filial reality in us. To be restored to life with God is to be incorporated into Jesus Christ by the Spirit; but because the gift of the Spirit is what takes away mutual fear and hostility and the shutting-up of human selves against each other, it is inseparably and necessarily a gift of mutual human communion also. The sacramental life and the communal disciplines of the Church exist to serve and witness to this dual fact of communion, with the Father and with all believers. To take only one of the countless formulations referred to in the Harvesting document, in this case from the 1993 Lutheran-Catholic statement on Church and Justification (#6), ‘According to the witness of the New Testament, our salvation, the justification of sinners and the existence of the church are indissolubly linked with the triune God and are founded in him alone.’
There is nothing wrong with this ecclesiology. It is quite genuine. The difficulty is that the Archbishop attempts to play this off against another, slightly different, traditional Roman ecclesiology:
Part of what Vatican II turned away from is a way of talking about the Church as primarily an institution existing because of divine decree, governed by prescription from the Lord, faithfully administering the sacraments ordained by him for the salvation of souls – ‘an external, visible society, whose members, under a hierarchical authority headed by the pope, constitute with him one visible body, tending to the same spiritual and supernatural end, i.e., sanctification of souls and their eternal happiness’ (Pietro Palazzini, s.v. ‘Church (Society)’ in the Dictionary of Moral Theology, ed. F. Roberti and P. Palazzini, originally published in 1957).
Did Vatican II in fact turn away from such an ecclesiology? Lumen Gentium has it as follows:
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
So the answer to the question “Did Vatican II in fact turn away from an ecclesiology which describes the Church as “an external, visible society, whose members, under a hierarchical authority headed by the pope, constitute with him one visible body, tending to the same spiritual and supernatural end, i.e., sanctification of souls and their eternal happiness” is: Obviously not.
Eucharistic or Communion ecclesiology is right and true and helpful as far as it goes, but it is (at least as Catholics and Orthodox would understand it) dependant upon the validity of the Eucharistic life of an ecclesial community – which is itself dependant upon the validity of the bishop and the priesthood which administers the Eucharist in that community. These are not “second order” issues. It was a central issue for St Ignatius in the early 2nd Century and remains a central – first order – issue today.
(One might add, but it is not the main focus of my post on this subject that neither is the issue of the Petrine Ministry “second order” – at least in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.)
Only if the Apostolic Ministry is seen in purely functional terms and only if the ecclesial community which that Ministry serves is seen to have the authority to constitute that ministry as it sees fit to best to serve the purpose of the gospel, could issues of Apostolic Ministry be seen as “second order”. Williams said:
The summary on pp.137-8 of Harvesting [Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of the Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue. PCPCU, edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper] puts it very well in describing convergence around the belief that ‘the ministry and the ministries in the Church are not an end in themselves’; the Church is called to obedience, and thus to the discerning conservation of the authentic gospel in its teaching and preaching. But is that obedience, discernment and conservation in some sense the task of the entire body of the baptised or essentially that of a group designated as having binding power?
His answer in the following paragraphs is quite definitely: this is the “task of the entire body of the baptised” and not “a group designated as having binding power”, by which he quite clearly refers to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Williams argument is that the “the essential character of filial and communal holiness as set out in Scripture and tradition and ecumenical agreement” that is going on in Anglican Churches is the same as that which is going on in Catholic Churches and should be recognised as such, despite the fact that many Anglican Churches ordain women as priests and even bishops. Williams gets to the hub of the matter when he asks:
The challenge to recent Roman Catholic thinking on this would have to be: in what way does the prohibition against ordaining women so ‘enhance the life of communion’, reinforcing the essential character of filial and communal holiness as set out in Scripture and tradition and ecumenical agreement, that its breach would compromise the purposes of the Church as so defined? And do the arguments advanced about the “essence” of male and female vocations and capacities stand on the same level as a theology derived more directly from scripture and the common theological heritage such as we find in these ecumenical texts?
In other words, the prohibition of the ordination of women is a second order issue to the primary issue of a life of filial and communion holiness. He describes this “prohibition” as the result of “recent determinations on the Roman Catholic side”. Here is how he puts the question:
All ordained ministers are ordained into the shared richness of the apostolic ministerial order – or perhaps we could say ministerial ‘communion’ yet again. None ministers as a solitary individual. [em]Thus if the ministerial collective is understood strictly in terms of the ecclesiology we have been considering[/em], as serving the goal of filial and communal holiness as the character of restored humanity, [em]how much is that undermined if individuals within the ministerial communion are of different genders[/em]? Even if there remains [em]uncertainty [/em]in the minds of some about the rightness of ordaining women, is there a way of recognising that somehow the corporate exercise of a Catholic and evangelical ministry remains intact even when there is dispute about the standing of female individuals? In terms of the relation of local to universal, what we are saying here is that a degree of recognizability of ‘the same Catholic thing’ has survived: [my emphasis]
How are we to reply to this? One would be to point out that a genuine ecclesiology of communion, a genuine Eucharistic ecclesiology, cannot allow any room for “uncertainty” in relation to the Sacraments of the Church. The reason for this is, as the Catechism puts it in a most significant passage:
1076 The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit [cf. SC 6; LG 2]. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the "dispensation of the mystery" the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, "until he comes" [1 Cor 11:26]. In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls "the sacramental economy"; this is the communication (or "dispensation") of the fruits of Christ's Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church's "sacramental" liturgy.
The preservation of the “Sacramental Economy” as instituted by Christ is therefore A FIRST ORDER ISSUE, for apart from the Sacraments, there is no other means by which “Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church”.
For all the Archbishop of Canterbury’s valiant attempts to say “It really doesn’t matter”, the answer that we must give is: “Oh yes it does.”
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
by Donatus , Brisbane, Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 15:47 (247 days ago) @ Schutz
» Eucharistic or Communion ecclesiology is right and true and helpful as far as it goes, but it is (at least as Catholics and Orthodox would understand it) dependant upon the validity of the Eucharistic life of an ecclesial community – which is itself dependant upon the validity of the bishop and the priesthood which administers the Eucharist in that community. These are not “second order” issues.
Forgive me if I'm missing something critical, but it appeares to me that the above quote is a good starting point as a summary of your post.
I think though that maybe you are missing the Archbishop's point. Fair enough, you say that validity of holy orders is a 'first order' issue (I'm sure he would agree) but you seem to side-step the reason why you believe that anyone's validity is in question.
Is there an aspect of the faith life, theology, beliefs or creed of Christians who accept female ordination that has led them to believe in a different God from the rest of us or experience harm in their faith life or heresy in their creed? If you said yes, then an argument that female ordination is an attack on the validity of orders (and thus an affront to ecclesial communion) would be on good ground.
You appear to be saying however that despite no evidence of harm to the faith life of those communities who ordain female priests (thereby allowing that the issue at hand is not significant enough to be a worthy source of schism between Christians), nevertheless it should be considered as a "first order" issue simply because some Christians believe that those orders are not valid for reasons other than because they have led people to harm or heresy in their faith.
Your reasoning appears circular. What am I missing?
Deciding that something is worth the pain of schism even where it does no harm to transmission of the gospel or the tradition of the faith of the fathers seems a bit harsh don't you think? Surely a less traumatic accommodation could be reached than calling for the severing apart of the body of Christ, his church? Or our nose to spite our face?
See what I mean?
--D
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
Yes, I see what you mean. But I think there is a fallacy here not unrelated to the kind of thinking that is common among Lutheran theologians (a species category to which I once belonged). There it is the Word alone that validates all sacraments, including Eucharist and Ministry. By extension, a common Lutheran thought was that any given Eucharist is a true Eucharist if the community in which it is celebrated holds a public doctrine of the Real Presence. Thus, from a "Word alone" theology, they derive a "belief alone" ontology of the sacraments (not quite the same thing as "faith alone").
It is, in effect, to reverse the old "lex orandi lex credendi" dictum to make the "lex credendi" the defining factor in the "lex orandi". If I believe rightly, then everything I do in the rites must also be right.
This is one point. Right belief does not create right reality.
Another point is related to it. If the "lex orandi" indeed has an effect on the "lex credendi", then in many subtle ways, changes to the rites and practices of the Church in relaton to the liturgy and sacraments directly affects the way in which the faith is believed.
Is there no connection between the fact that it is those very Christian communities which have embraced the ordination of women as priests that the normal human male-female vocations have also been subverted?
When the "foretaste of the wedding banquet to come" is celebrated by someone who in their very flesh icons the bride rather than the bridegroom, how can this not have an effect on the faith of the Church?
Rowan said that "the Church is called to obedience, and thus to the discerning conservation of the authentic gospel in its teaching and preaching." The sad thing is that when we look at the Anglican communion today (and in fact many other Christian denominations) we do not see this obedience, nor the "discerning conservation of the authentic gospel." We wish we could. We look hard for it and see signs of it - in particular the Word of God and the sacrament of baptism - but in many, many cases we find the opposite: Christians doing things in the name of the Gospe that are not in obedience to our Lord.
So I guess my point to Rowan would be, when he challenges me to look at his communities and recognise that what happens there is authentic "Catholic life", I would have to say that while once it looked like a duck, and walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, it is more and more beginning to look like a goose.
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
by Donatus , Brisbane, Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 17:05 (247 days ago) @ Schutz
» Is there no connection between the fact that it is those very Christian communities which have embraced the ordination of women as priests that the normal human male-female vocations have also been subverted?
Umm, I hope you are not saying what I think you're saying here. What do you mean 'normal human male-female vocations' being subverted in some communities please? Do you mean, like how normal male-female vocations have been subverted by members of some churches who have indulged in the perversion of pederasty for example? How does this subversion effect the notion of that community's discernment of the validity of their ordination rites?
» When the "foretaste of the wedding banquet to come" is celebrated by someone who in their very flesh icons the bride rather than the bridegroom, how can this not have an effect on the faith of the Church?
I thought that in Catholic theology, the sacrament of matrimony is bestowed by the bride and groom upon each other not by another external actor (either male or female). Or are you now claiming that catholic theology renders the bride unable to bestow this sacrament, and that it is the groom who performs it?
I rather think that the matrimony example is a very good one to show the acceptance of the validity of female equality in the bestowing of sacraments. You might need to abandon that example if you're trying to prove otheriwse.
» So I guess my point to Rowan would be, when he challenges me to look at his communities and recognise that what happens there is authentic "Catholic life", I would have to say that while once it looked like a duck, and walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, it is more and more beginning to look like a goose.
Again, are you saying what I think you're saying? I think the argument might be very fragile in a 'glass house' sort of way so I'd ask that you expand on this point before I respond directly to it.
--D
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
Dear Donatus,
I think you misunderstand me. I was not talking about the sacrament of matrimony, but the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which the priest is the ikon of Christ the Bridegroom, and the people ikon his bride, the Church.
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
by PeterR , Thursday, November 26, 2009, 19:16 (246 days ago) @ Schutz
" .. the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which the priest is the ikon of Christ the Bridegroom, and the people ikon his bride, the Church."
I have been at doctors and hospitals all day and I am exhausted.
On the other hand I have been studying liturgy for more than fifty years.
From what source does this amazing idea arise?
Peter
lockedThe Argument for Male-Only Priesthood
Hi David,
Wow! I’m with Peter on that one – where did you get that theology from? Possibly JP II in part; but I’m not sure he went so far as to identify the priest directly with Christ as bridegroom and the assembled congregation with the bride. Sounds a bit “icky” to me! But let’s be serious. The reality is that the idea of “priest” is exhausted neither by reference to the ordained ministry alone. The whole body of adherents are Church and their gathering together, be it in those buildings and under the nominated and ordained leadership (or outside those walls and beyond that authoritative sanction), make up what the Fathers at Vatican II called the “universal priesthood”, which is inclusive of the “ministerial priesthood” not distinct from it.
I think that your response should have focused instead on the idea of priest as acting “in persona Christi”; but even that would not allow you to go quite as far as you did. Let me try to anticipate your argument.
This doctrine of the priest as acting “in persona Christi” owes much to Aquinas, but has been given particular emphasis and new impetus by John Paul II. In Thomist theology, Christ is seen as receiving my Thomas called “Capital Grace” from the Father, which bestowed upon Christ headship of the Church.
This view of Christ as the head of the Church obviously owes much to Paul’s body analogy (Rom 12:4-8; cf. Col 1:18; Eph 1:22), which made organic links between Christ’s “headship” and that of the apostolic leaders of the Christian communities (e.g., Apostles and teachers – Rom 12:7), as well as the male headship of the family (1 Cor 11:21-16). The connections are probably best seen in the Deutero-Pauline Ephesians:
For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendour, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind--yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. (Eph 5:23—28)
In Thomist theology, Christ alone is the only priest, who stands between God and humanity as both priest and sacrifice. Here, of course, Thomas draws heavily on the book of Hebrews, which portrays Christ as the new High Priest. Moreover, Aquinas does not question the necessity of sacrifice – his is clearly a theology of Atonement. Hence in the Summa he can write:
Now man is required to offer sacrifice for three reasons. First, for the remission of sin, by which he is turned away from God…Secondly, that man may be preserved in a state of grace…Thirdly, in order that the spirit of man be perfectly united to God: which will be most perfectly realized in glory…Now, these effects were conferred on us by the humanity of Christ. For, in the first place, our sins were blotted out…Secondly, through Him we received the grace of salvation…Thirdly, through Him we have acquired the perfection of glory…Therefore Christ Himself, as man, was not only priest, but also a perfect victim, being at the same time victim for sin, victim for a peace-offering, and a holocaust.
The sacrifice of the eucharist remembers, re-pesents and makes present anew that one sacrifice on the cross. And while all members of the Eucharistic body are part of a new priestly community, only those consecrated and set apart to offer the new sacrifice partake of Christ’s ministerial priesthood. Aquinas says that it is the nature of Christ’s priesthood to be communicated to others:
A priest is set between God and man. Now he needs someone between himself and God, who of himself cannot approach to God; and such a one is subject to the priesthood by sharing in the effect thereof. But this cannot be said of Christ; for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:25): Coming of Himself to God, always living to make intercession for us…And therefore it is not fitting for Christ to be the recipient of the effect of His priesthood, but rather to communicate it to others. For the influence of the first agent in every genus is such that it receives nothing in that genus: thus the sun gives but does not receive light…Now Christ is the fountain-head of the entire priesthood: for the priest of the Old Law was a figure of Him; while the priest of the New Law works in his person, according to 2 Corinthians 2:10: For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done in the person of Christ.
This medieval patriarchy and atonement theology was revived by John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Pastores Dabo Vobis. He wrote that the ministerial priesthood "has its source in the Blessed Trinity… Through the priesthood which arises from the depths of the ineffable mystery of God, that is, from the love of the Father, the grace of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit’s gift of unity, the priest sacramentally enters into communion with the bishop and with other priests in order to serve the people of God who are the Church…"
The key phrase in the above quote from Pastores Dabo Vobis is "sacramentally enters into". It is by virtue of the sacramental consecration which the priest receives in the sacrament of Holy Orders that he is given the grace to enter into the mystery of Christ’s priesthood. There is also the perpetuation of the hierarchical model of society and even biology – the one priest Christ bestows his priesthood upon the bishop who ordains priests to offer the sacrifice of the Mass in the name of the bishop who is the “head” of the diocese. As in nature and society, the head takes precedence over the other members of the body, just as the pater familias takes precedence over the wife, children and servants in a household.
There would seem to be here a tension between the universal priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood of the ordained ministers. However, we traditionally argue that the dignity of the priestly vocation in no way diminishes the importance of the lay vocation. Both are equal in dignity and both are called to holiness. However, there is an essential difference between the two vocations (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:21).
Just as Christ became both God and human by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, the priest is configured to Christ in his very being by virtue of his consecration. Just as the human nature of Christ is personalized by its union with the divine Person of the Word, so is the priest, by virtue of sacramental consecration, configured in his being to Jesus Christ, Head and Shepherd. He acts in persona Christi.
The sacramental consecration of the ministerial priest, therefore, can only be understood in light of the Thomist idea of the Capital Grace of Christ. As we saw, the Capital Grace of Christ is that grace given to Christ by the Father which makes Christ the Head of the Church and thereby makes the Church holy; it is the fount of the sacramental life of the Church. Just as the members of his body receive that grace and became sharers in the divine nature through the sacrament of baptism, so do men (and, if we follow your argument, it must be “men” since the husband is the head of the family) who are ordained priests receive the grace of participating in his priesthood.
Christ is the source of the sacramental life of the Church, and he is the source of the one priesthood which is bestowed on the men he calls to follow him as priests. But, added to this, is the Matthean Petrine commission, from which the Hierarchy and the Papacy derive their apostolic authority “to bind and lose” (Matt 16:19); coupled with their authority “to forgive sins”, which Jesus bestowed on them at Johannine Pentecost (Jn 20:23). This authority rests with the bishops alone, and is only granted to priests at ordination.
Priests are ordained by bishops because the bishops are sharers in that authority which Christ granted to the Peter and the Apostles. Priests are ordained through the laying on of hands because the bishops are in the line of Apostolic Succession, and this is only possible because Christ willed that his Apostles be sharers in his Capital Grace.
Now there are all sorts of ways in which we might challenge some of these claims, historical as well as theological. But I might leave that to others for the moment...LOL! Although I have offered views on the women apostles (here) and the primacy of Peter (here and here) before, so you are free to consult those commentaries.
Cheers,
Ian
Ian J. Elmer
I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)
lockedA few bits of official teaching re the priesthood of the laity
by PeterR , Friday, November 27, 2009, 15:45 (245 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
48. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God's word and be nourished at the table of the Lord's body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator [38], they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.
Eucharisticum Mysterium9.
The Different Modes of Christ's Presence
In order that they should achieve a deeper understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist, the faithful should be instructed in the principal ways in which the Lord is present to His Church in liturgical celebrations.43
He is always present in a body of the faithful gathered in His name (cf. Matt. 18:20). He is present too in His Word, for it is He who speaks when the Scriptures are read in the Church.
In the sacrifice of the Eucharist He is present both in the person of the minister, "the same now offering through the ministry of the priest who formerly offered himself on the Cross,"44 and above all under the species of the Eucharist.45 For in this sacrament Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently. This presence of Christ under the species "is called 'real' not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but 'par excellence'."46
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
10. Christ the Lord, High Priest taken from among men,(100) made the new people "a kingdom and priests to God the Father".(101) The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated as a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, in order that through all those works which are those of the Christian man they may offer spiritual sacrifices and proclaim the power of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light.(102) Therefore all the disciples of Christ, persevering in prayer and praising God,(103) should present themselves as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God.(104) Everywhere on earth they must bear witness to Christ and give an answer to those who seek an account of that hope of eternal life which is in them.(105)
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ.(2*) The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist.(3*) They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity.
lockedThe Argument for Male-Only Priesthood
by curlie que , Saturday, November 28, 2009, 16:33 (244 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
Ian, You are just promoting the Vatican dribble. I credited you with a bit more intelligence to see thru the rubbish they come out with.
lockedThe Argument for Male-Only Priesthood
No! No! God forbid! Curlie Cue, I was merely trying to show how the argument could be made. I am fully aware of the many mistakes and false premises inherent in the argument - as I noted elsewhere in this thread. I wanted to demonstrate how beholden the traditionalists are to old worn out medieval ideas - that was the point.
Ian J. Elmer
I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
Hi David,
All of this quoting of documents is good stuff, but I wonder how much it really matters to John or Mary in the pews – or Harry or Harriet here on Catholica. The Church is a human institution established by the followers of Jesus as a place of communion and companionship. It is no divine or heavenly institution; it is not even the Kingdom – it is the herald of that kingdom. As a human institution is subject to error and failure; it has no guarantee that it is always right, just and charitable; the doctrine of infallibility does not guarantee anything other than freedom from doctrinal error. And even then I believe there is ample evidence that doctrine too undergoes development and change.
The Church is made of frail and faltering human beings like you, me, John, Mary, Harry and Harriet. I wonder, then, what you really believe; what you think about women priests, or the importance of the issue of Orders. Despite protestations to the contrary, the reality is that the Church changes its policies regularly in response to changing societal mores. And, when it comes to the issue of the ordination of women (to name but one of the issues at stake in the Catholic-Anglican dialogue), I suspect that the present negative attitudes will change.
Ultimately, in practical terms the Pope and the Bishops derive their “moral” authority from the whole body of the faithful (what we might call the sensus fidelium) – something of which John Henry Newman spoke when argued that our faith is preserved and passed on by the conspiratio fidelium et pastorum (the “breathing together of the faithful and the pastors”).
The breath or spirit of God animates and inspires both the hierarchy and the faithful alike. The Vatican II document on Divine Revelation even went so far as to say that very development of tradition and doctrine derives the “contemplation” and “study” of “all believers” (8). Similarly, Lumen gentium speaks of the “prophetic office” being fulfilled “not only through the hierarchy who teach in his [Jesus’] name and by his power, but also through the laity” (35). Both hierarchy and laity are seen as “witnesses” whose combined efforts, thoughts, study and reflection lead to the sensus fidei.
The development of doctrine is not simply a matter of decrees being handed down from on high, but rather a dynamic process of prayer, reflection, and study leading to ever deepening understandings of the “deposit of faith”. The movement is not vertical but horizontal. The Pope and the Bishops have the duty and the vocation to preserve and pass on the deposit of the faith; but they also do so only as representatives of and as spokespersons for the whole “inspired” community of faith. To declare doctrine or make judgements upon the faith and practice of the Church bishops and Pope speak from the sensus fidei and not from their own personal judgement. In that sense their authority derives from the Divinely-inspired community they serve.
We could say that John Paul II was correct in saying that he did not have the authority to change the Church's ancient practice of ordaining only men to the ministerial priesthood. There is no clear directive from Christ himself, no scriptural mandate, and no historical justification for denying women ordination. The authority for determining whether or not women can be admitted to Orders can only derive from the whole community "breathing together".
Of course, we should remember that the whole issue is not a simple matter of the Roman Church changing its practice. The Pontiff also must be mindful of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and especially the Eastern rite communities in communion with Rome (for whom the Pope also speaks).
Cheers,
Ian
Ian J. Elmer
I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
by curlie que , Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 20:20 (247 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
Thank you,Ian, very well put.
locked
Mindful of ALL our Orthodox brothers and sisters
by ray(O) , Toowong, Thursday, November 26, 2009, 11:37 (247 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
Including those "orthodox" brothers and sisters within our own Catholic Church.
Ian's comment:-
The authority for determining whether or not women can be admitted to Orders can only derive from the whole community "breathing together".
When women are finally admitted to the full ministry in the Church, how is the Pope going to convince those holding on to a medieval Church view that we must breathe together?
We can't "breathe together" in the direction that Vatican II has tried to steer us. So what does that say?
It’s no use holding our breath either!!!!
The first step has to be to "unite" our church first. It is obvious that the Church in Rome has not been able to "conform" the Church as history has shown us.
Even the "threat" of excommunication no longer works. We are Catholic because we want to be. Our united faith in Jesus Christ is why we are Catholic. Issues such as ordination of women are secondary, not primary issues.
together in the Faith of Christ
Ray
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine
I wonder, then, what you really believe; what you think about women priests, or the importance of the issue of Orders. Despite protestations to the contrary, the reality is that the Church changes its policies regularly in response to changing societal mores. And, when it comes to the issue of the ordination of women (to name but one of the issues at stake in the Catholic-Anglican dialogue), I suspect that the present negative attitudes will change.
I believe your suspicion is incorrect. It is not a "negative attitude" but a "negative judgement" on a proposal for changing the priesthood.
Ultimately, in practical terms the Pope and the Bishops derive their “moral” authority from the whole body of the faithful (what we might call the sensus fidelium).
I don't know about "moral" authority, but it would be incorrect to say this of their "teaching" authority. The Pope and the Bishops receive their teaching mandate directly from Christ through ordination.
The breath or spirit of God animates and inspires both the hierarchy and the faithful alike.
No argument there, but I, at least, am talking about the heirarchy's teaching authority, not the power of the Spirit that animates every Christian in their particular vocation.
The Vatican II document on Divine Revelation even went so far as to say that very development of tradition and doctrine derives the “contemplation” and “study” of “all believers” (8). Similarly, Lumen gentium speaks of the “prophetic office” being fulfilled “not only through the hierarchy who teach in his [Jesus’] name and by his power, but also through the laity” (35). Both hierarchy and laity are seen as “witnesses” whose combined efforts, thoughts, study and reflection lead to the sensus fidei.
Again, no argument there, but the "teaching office" is not the same as the "prophetic office". The same document on Divine Revelation says that "task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ". (DV 10.) DV does not define who has this teaching office, but it is from the whole Catholic tradition that, as the Catechism puts it in paragraph 85, it: "has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."
The Pope and the Bishops have the duty and the vocation to preserve and pass on the deposit of the faith; but they also do so only as representatives of and as spokespersons for the whole “inspired” community of faith. To declare doctrine or make judgements upon the faith and practice of the Church bishops and Pope speak from the sensus fidei and not from their own personal judgement. In that sense their authority derives from the Divinely-inspired community they serve.
As my citation from DV 10 shows above, this is not correct. The authority of the teaching office does not derive from the sensus fidelium but from Christ alone.
We could say that John Paul II was correct in saying that he did not have the authority to change the Church's ancient practice of ordaining only men to the ministerial priesthood. There is no clear directive from Christ himself, no scriptural mandate, and no historical justification for denying women ordination. The authority for determining whether or not women can be admitted to Orders can only derive from the whole community "breathing together".
Again, you are quite incorrect. The apostolic ministry is Christ's ministry, not the Church's. As St Paul says in Eph 4, Christ gave the ministry as a gift to the Church. It comes from him, and we receive it from him. The Church did not and does not create the Apostolic Ministry. On this fundamental matter, if the only directive we have from Christ is a male-only ministry, JPII was quite correct to say "we have no authority" to change it.
Of course, we should remember that the whole issue is not a simple matter of the Roman Church changing its practice. The Pontiff also must be mindful of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and especially the Eastern rite communities in communion with Rome (for whom the Pope also speaks).
And indeed of all our Orthodox brothers and sisters, as other commentators have pointed out.
lockedJP II Was Right!
Hi David,
For me the one crucial sentence in your response is the one where you say "if" the only directive we have regarding the male-only priesthood is from Christ, then JP II was correct in saying that he has no authority to change it. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we actually did have a "directive" from Jesus himself on this, and whole lot of other disputed, issue/s. The fact is we don't! Indeed, in my humble opinion, the unequivocal witness of the New Testament is that women did exercise ministry within the Church, even apostolic ministry. So, in that case, I reckon that JP II is quite right in saying he doesn't have any authority to rule on this issue.
But that is not what I was saying per se. I wanted to make two points. First, while I don't deny that bishops, and the Pope in unison with the bishops, have "teaching authority", I would say that said "teaching authority" does not give them the ability to declare that "black is white". Infallibility does not derive from any special insight that a bishop or pope gains on consecration.
The doctrine of infallibility does not allow the Pope or bishops to rule against positive affirmation of matters that are self-evidently true according to common sense. That may seem obvious; but I believe the position of some in the Church with regard women in orders is of this kind. Once again in my humble opinion, women by virtue of their baptism have the same inalienable right to orders as do men and for the same reason. God calls men and women to exercise priestly ministry! Moreover, as I noted above, the witness of the New Testament to women exercising such ministry in the early Church is irrefutable.
The second point I wanted to make is a sociological one and probably also a political one. Modern political science has stressed that all leaders/rulers exercise their authority at the good graces of their subjects – unless they resort to violence and terror. History teaches us that said rulers will be readily ridiculed or even displaced if they ignore the wishes of their subjects.
The Roman Church is the one of the last remaining monarchy; but it is not an absolute monarchy. The Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals and exercises his authority only in unison with the bishops who represent the whole Church. In very practical terms, popes can and have in the past lost the confidence of the rank-and-file in the Church. To continue to declare that women have no right to orders in the face of solid biblical evidence and growing support from the rank-and-file risks a loss of “moral" authority – or to put it bluntly, the papacy is in danger of becoming an anachronism. It hasn’t yet; but there remains a clear and present danger.
Cheers,
Ian
Ian J. Elmer
I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)
lockedJP II Was Right! - No he wasn't!!!!
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Friday, November 27, 2009, 14:01 (245 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
To continue to declare that women have no right to orders in the face of solid biblical evidence and growing support from the rank-and-file risks a loss of “moral" authority – or to put it bluntly, the papacy is in danger of becoming an anachronism. It hasn’t yet; but there remains a clear and present danger.
»
» Cheers,
»
» Ian
I of course agree entirely with you Ian. But I think in today's release of the Dublin Report the Church has now become an anachronism - they have lost all moral authority. And worse is that the Vatican did not deal with it but passed the buck back and forth, with of course the famous silence from the Nuncio and anyone else who doesn't want to answer awkward questions.
A side line here: I am still waiting for a reply to a local diocesan office regarding an issue I wrote to them about four weeks ago. What is more, the diocese does not give out email addresses so one has to use snail mail. I suppose then they can say the answer was lost in the mail!!
I digress, forgive me.
Helen
lockedNo, it is still a duck
by ray(O) , Toowong, Thursday, November 26, 2009, 11:52 (247 days ago) @ Schutz
So I guess my point to Rowan would be, when he challenges me to look at his communities and recognise that what happens there is authentic "Catholic life", I would have to say that while once it looked like a duck, and walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, it is more and more beginning to look like a goose.
Perhaps it is only you who would like it to be a goose?
If we recognised that it is a duck, we would be closer to a real ecumenical understanding of each other.
We seem to be highlighting only those DIFFERENCES between us. When these differences are only secondary and in most cases minor, what is the issue?
Our true faith in God, hope for a better future, and love of another are what unite us all in Christ.
Maybe in comes down to admitting that we are not as "infallible" as we think we are.
together in the Faith of Christ
Ray
lockedHierarchy of Doctrine What did Kasper say?
by Englishwoman , Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 17:59 (247 days ago) @ Schutz
I've searched, unsuccessfully, to discover what Cardinal Kasper said when he spoke afterwards at the same symposium?
Can you give me a reference to his reply please?
Mary
lockedSome thoughts on joint congregations -- FYI
A couple of decades ago, I remember reading about the fact that in certain rural or war-torn areas of Africa, the Catholic people were given a special dispensation to attend the weekly Church services of their Anglican counterparts who used the same Scriptural Liturgical readings as the Catholics, but they were NOT to receive the Anglican "communion", since it was considered invalid. This helped to meet the "Sunday Obligation" by having at least the Service of the Word...
They were permitted, if the Anglicans also included it in the time allotted, to have their own Catholic Eucharistic Ministers distribute previously consecrated hosts at the same service, to the Catholics, if such were available.
The Anglican clergy in these areas left it up to their congregants' conscious if they wished to received from the Catholic clergy. (Though, I hardly can see how the local Catholics who knew each other, would permit this on a regular basis -- KMC).
In the light of years of increasingly more conservative Catholic cultural practices, I wonder if this still continues?
Something similar takes place in the joint Lutheran-Catholic parish here in Oregon. The 2 congregations have a joint service of the Word, but then the congreations separate for the Service of the Eucharist...
The local Archbishop tolerates this extrageographical special parish as long as the Catholic clergy are not "poached" or drawn from active ministers.
Hence every few years, while awaiting the next retired pastor, the Eucharistic ministers of the group collect extra hosts from the nearby geographical parishes.
Most of the congregation is mixed Lutheran-Catholic marriages where both intend that any children be raised in both traditions or those comfortable with ecumenism in practise.
lockedSome thoughts on joint congregations -- FYI
Kay,
I suspect that there are many such colaborative liturgies going on. Just today I celebrated a Eucharist attended by people from several denominations and all received communion without anyone bothering to ask about the validity of the action.
Cheers,
Ian
Ian J. Elmer
I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)
lockedRowan Williams hits the ball back across the Tiber.
by vynette , Brisbane, Australia, Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 13:16 (247 days ago) @ Donatus
Well, Donatus, perhaps it's not "hitting the nail on the head" because I suspect that many ordinary folk would regard it as just more incomprehensible "mumbo-jumbo."
We can lay the blame for this perception at the feet of those theologians past and present who stubbornly press on with the complex and tortuous formulations necessitated by the doctrine of the Trinity
The Trinity is a concept that exists solely in the minds of theologians. It has no basis in the teachings of either the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament.
The Trinity teaching is thought to be a 'great truth' or a 'mystery'. In fact it was originally an attempt to marry two opposing principles - Jewish monotheism and the plurality of 'gentile' theology. The result was a sort of 'have your cake and eat it too' doctrine.
The entire Christian doctrinal system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with the essential difference being that, this time, Christian teachings won't be based on the musings of the Hellenist-Latin fathers but on the concrete teachings of Scripture.
As for Williams' concerns about "authority," there is no present impediment to the realisation of full Christian unity as 'papal primacy' just does not exist, even though other Christian denominations have so long heard it asserted that they now believe it.
locked
