I had begun a reflection on this a few days ago and felt I should wait to post it. My point is not to talk about Women's ordination. I support it and my current superior is an ordained woman and I worked for nearly three years along side Jane Schmoetzer an Episcopal priest and a woman at Church of Jesus Christ Reconciler. It was reading a discussion that happened over at Jane's blog on a sermon she preached a week and a half ago that reframed the issue for me.
The interaction that is relavant took place between the Rev. Ref and a regular visitor and dialogue partner on this blog the Young Fogey. I reference this not to dredge up an argument that I think has run its course, but because these two things lead me to wonder about ecumenical engagement and what we expect from it. And I am wondering if I expect something other than my former co-pastor expects and has expected, and perhaps she will be surprised by what I reveal here, I don't know. However, from my reading if Bishop Wright's and Bishop Stancliffe's comments fully reflect their understanding of ecumenical engagement I am sure I see things very differently than they.
I am engaged in an ecumnical work because I see the witness of my small Protestant Lutheran Pietist (or Evangelical depending on who you ask) denomination as partial witness to the Gospel at best. As I have said here before the faith I have is mostly due to faithful members of the Evangelical Covenant Church. The long puzzel for me in my faith has been that the faith I was raised with always pointed me beyond my denomination. Given a number of quirks of the Covenant it seems difficult if not impossible to believe that the Covenant Church has the corner on what it measn to be Christian or the Church, in fact I argued in a seminary paper that we lacked a coherent ecclesiology. A problem and yet also a boon, if what I am going to say bellow is true.
The other peice of this puzzle is that I do not believe nor do I think I have ever believed that the Reformation recovered or refounded the Church. In a very real sense the Reformation was a failure (I do not believe I have invented this veiw it is how I have read Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, espcially Braaten in Mother Church) while at the same time the Reformation had very catholic impulses. It seems to me in his own way though using this point to argue for a return to Rome, Louis Bouyer made a similar point. This paradox has various causes: the nature of the personalities involved on both sides, the state of the papacy and possibly even due to the dominance of nominalism at the time. What ever the reasons the Reformation did not end with a reformation of the church but further schism in/of the church. Schism that has continued down to our own day as Protestantisms continue to multiply and divide Christians which even effects my wife and I in our relationship with my mother-in-law. But even in these schismatic conditions there are and have been continuous catholic affirmations within Protestantism.
Where I engage ecumenism it is in this catholic affirmation not in attempts to deffend our schism(s) as if the divisions of Christians is in any way deffensable, while also affirming that I cannot explain my faith as it exists if I and the Covenant are completely and absolutely beyond the boundaries of the church. This is how I have read Braaten and to some extent Jenson, it is how I understand the Faith and Order commission of the World Council of Churches. BTW if Alvin Kimel or the Young Fogey, or Cliff or any other Orthodox or Roman Catholic want to dislodge me from my current ecumenism show me where Braaten and Jenson go wrong or the Faith and Order Commission (As should be becoming clear I am not the "Doctrine divides, Service Unites ecumenist) for that matter, without vitriolic and overstatement for effect. If you are convincing you may just achieve what you hope for. Oh and for the record Louis Bouyer simply reinforced my dilema as a Protestant with catholic affirmations so you might have to do better than he.
But I digress. This failure along with catholic tendency should cause one to pause as Kimel asks us to, before statements like the one given by the good bishops in responce to Cardinal Kasper. Such statements argue for rapid changes in the church, as if we (Protestants, oh sorry but I have to admit I see Anglicans as Protestant whatever protestation they may give about that label) alone in our isolated and shismatic contexts can discern new movements of the Spirit for which there is little or no evidence in Scripture or the history of the church. I must admit that I'd like to believe that we could move headlong ahead and consider the issue of woman's ordination a settled issue and lable all others who don't fall in line as wrong headed. I wish as well that the blessing of same sex couples and the ordination of persons in a commited same sex union could be settled and we simply move on. But to do so and not listen to the voices of those who keep telling us that there are sound theolgoical and Gospel and ecclesial reasons for not doing so and to move blindly forward expecting RC and Orthodoxy to accept the word of schismatics (no matter how catholic we may try to be) appears to me like a heedless narrow fixation on ourselves that borders on the self-righteous. Forgive me my good bishops but your responce to the good cardinal seemed like simple self-justification to do what you want in the face of a kind if firm statement that to do X simply continues your schismatic tendencies and is not in the spirit of your catholic tendencies. While I have and continue to support the ordination of women in my denomination I do so wihtout believing either that I or anyone else can claim the issue settled with any sort of certainty, nor do I believe that the debate could be settled between Christians who are in schism, as we all are from each other. Now admitedly I and the Covenant do not pretend to have the same view of ordination as the RC, while Anglicans I understand do, so I can understand from a certian pov that it stings more for Anglicans than for me to admit this. If the Covenant theology of ordination is the full truth then there is nothing to keep us from moving forward. However, the Covenant position on ordiantion is bound up with a vague ecclesiology and is possibly in part in contradiction to an ecclesiology that was held from the time Ignatius of Antioch onward by orthodox catholic Christians. So given both the fuzyness of Covenant theology and the older orthodox ecclesiology I think we need to have better arguments and face RC and Orthodoxy head on by not convincing them they are wrong and we are right but by seeking to show that their theology in fact supports what we believe to be right. I would think that Anglicans would especially need to do so since they have at least similar theology of ordination and ecclisiology and at least claim to be in line with the ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch. Though I will admit this might be a quixotic task.
In anycase I reject a certain type of ecumenism that simply wants the ecumenical endeavor to affirm everyones opinions or at least every groups opinions about what it means to be Christian and the church, as opposed to the ecumenism that seeks the whole witness of the church and is willing to submit to that long view, and to make decisions made from that universal perspective, as opposed to simply seeking to be timely. My hope is that Reconciler is instilled with this wide and deep ecumenical vision as an ecumenical congregation. I am niether a convinced Protestant nor a convinced ecumenist rather I am one who is seeking through ecumenical engagement to understand the paradox of my experience of faith as a Protestant: that I am both in a schismatic but also that my Lutheran Pietist denomination instiled in me a catholic and orthodox faith, or in the very least a catholic desire and love for the church. And by church I mean that entity/institution that came into existence on Pentecost when the Spirit descended on the Apostles and never ceased to be.
My suspicions are that I have in the very least puzzled most and possibly infuriated a few. But I hope it is clearer to all why I am a pastor of an ecumenical congregation.
powered by performancing firefox
First of all thanks again for the mention. I put your URL back in my blog's links yesterday. I'd taken it out months ago as I thought you'd stopped writing here!
ReplyDeleteIn spite of everything that discussion seems to have come to a good end, ceasing to be an argument some time back, and even migrated first to Reverend Ref's blog and then to Fr Mark J's where my acquaintance Dr Munn (Warwickensis) is keeping the side up amid some impressive theological heavy lifting.
Reading your blog, some time ago I cottoned onto the fact that at heart you're not a relativist but Christian - Reconciler strikes me from here as more Taizé-like.
I have a lot of respect for the Catholic strain in conservative Lutheranism - not only you but Conversi ad Dominum are in my links. In ways I'm more at home among them than among the conservative Vatican II RCs where Kimel has dropped anchor, even though on paper I've more in common with the latter. (BTW, small Anglican world - about 20 years ago Kimel was the rector of my Central Church friends Charley and Byrd at the Tune: Kings Lynn blog... he officiated at their wedding!)
Goes without saying I was disappointed in but by now unsurprised by Bps Wright and Stancliffe's statement - conservative (!) and Broad spokesmen for the C of E giving an un-Catholic answer essentially for the reason you described. (Flipping the bird to Catholicism East and West.)
Of course the Catholic world (and I'm not specifically talking about RC) says there's already a consensus on those controversial issues. And it's a poorly kept secret that I agree with that. The trick is: how can one do justice to your end, to be charitable, without falling into the errors of 1) the shrinking mainline merger into mush (which you've also dismissed here - 'a certain type of ecumenism that simply wants the ecumenical endeavor to affirm everyones opinions or at least every groups opinions about what it means to be Christian and the church') or 2) 'spirit of Vatican II'-ness? (Do you really want to swop the BCP and Anglican and Lutheran vesture, architecture, hymnody, etc. for ICEL, etc.?)
I'm not trying to give an answer tonight, just putting the question on the table.
All I can say for now is where you (one) find the Catholic faith in its fulness, go. Never mind what the sign on the door says. ('As long as it's a Wal-Mart' doesn't work for church, even though the sacraments are objective, etc. No, I can't explain that well, for which you probably are grateful.)
As I wrote to you before, I won't try to tell you exactly how to do that on the ground level where you are but pray and discern.
As for women's ordination what you wrote in theory isn't that different to the improbabilist position ('what does the whole Church Catholic say?'), one of two Catholic opinions on the matter, the other being the impossibilist one favoured by the late Pope.
Oremus pro invicem.
Regards,
John Beeler
Fisking the statement a few more things jumped out at me:
ReplyDeleteWhat are the criteria by which some developments (some growths in understanding, as it were) are seen as legitimate - the adoption of compulsory celibacy, a distinctively monastic discipline, for all ordained priests or the Marian Dogmas of 1854 and 1952, for example - while of others, like the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate, Cardinal Kasper declares that 'the Catholic Church is convinced that she has no right to [revise its current position]'?
Celibacy is discipline not doctrine and the Marian doctrines (and that's 1950 - 'blessed be her glorious Assumption') don't contradict earlier teaching.
We note that Dominus Iesus (2000), continued to regard Anglican churches as separated quasi-ecclesial communities. Rome regards the Eastern Orthodox as a 'church' on the grounds, in that document, that they 'objectively intend reunion' with Rome.
Do they? Makes me wonder how many Orthodox these bishops know! Seriously, I think there are three criteria by which Rome recognises 'churchness', basic credal orthodoxy, an unbroken claim of apostolic succession and - here's the deal-breaker that begat Apostolicæ Curæ - uninterrupted orthodox teaching about the Eucharist ('valid intention', the 'full and integral' mystery and so on), all of which the Christian East (and not just the Orthodox) has.
Imported Old Catholic orders in the early C20 made AC a dead letter for Anglo-Catholics until relatively recent controversial moves from Anglicans sent ecumenical progress down the pan.
The 'filioque' clause in the Creed is to this day regarded by Eastern Orthodox Christians as an unwarranted Roman addition to the creed of the universal church.
Then you can certainly imagine the Orthodox reaction to the recent controversial moves of Anglicans! Interestingly +Durham and +Salisbury don't get into that in their anti-Roman roll here. I think I remember reading something from Schmemann describing a certain move as 'the death of all dialogue'...
In discussing the source of the Church's authority, the Cardinal comes close at times to saying that it is only through the lens of the Church's tradition that scripture can be read.
Well, yes.
In the end, the arbiter is the sensus fidei, the entire body of the faithful, as was pointed out to Pius IX in 1848 by the Eastern Patriarchs in their Encyclical: "the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves". The faithful are the ultimate guardians of Tradition and the faith.
Right, and those patriarchs, and I dare say Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), believed that a sign of the true sensus (that the local bishop and gathered church are the Catholica in its fulness) is non-contradiction. As I wrote recently to Fr Young in his blog, a Catholic/Protestant fault-line is what we consider 'core' (and the Orthodox are maximalist about that!) and 'peripheral'/adiaphora.
This is not to be cavalier with tradition...
He said, being cavalier with tradition of course...
Larry, I posted as well.
ReplyDeletewww.anglobaptist.org/blog
Young Fogey,
ReplyDeleteI think you lost me in your first comment. Partially because I am not so conversant with all that goes on in the RC.
And also, I have only recently come across criticism within the RC of Vatican to from other than hyper traditionalists. One of my best friends would read me portions of Vatican II when we use to have the Protestant Catholic discussions and point out how it continued the tradition. He also loved to get me to read Pope John Paul II encyclicals.
But that is neither here nor there.
Lastly, I dislike the labels liberal and conservative. So, I suppose Braaten may be a conservative Lutheran but thats not why I find him persuasive.
YF,
ReplyDeleteYour second coment does remind me that the question of development in the church and in particular in church doctrine is part of the puzzle here for me.
I did not mention it because I believe it was a red herring in the face of Cardinal Kasper's comments. Though, I think it is on its own a valid question. Because clearly things developed, and just as clearly to me this doesn't mean all of us should just make it all up as we go along.
One of the reason's I actually believe the Tradition may possibly (if improbably) support woman's ordination is that when I read the arguments from the RC and Orthodox on the issue, at some point it seems that they stop arguing from tradition and begin to pull things out of thin air that simply don't make sense to me, usually bordering on biological essentialism.
But I am getting off topic.
If a change has happened in me in the years since I graduated from university and as I journeyed through seminary is that I found the attempting to decide what was core and what was 'peripheral'/adiaphora and became something of a maximalist myself. I just shake my head at those who ask "but is it really necesary for salvation?" I don't know but it might be necesary for ones salvation to stop asking what is simply absolutely necesary and just embrace salvation!
YF, we have you running from one blog to another. Let's set up a chat room!
ReplyDelete;-)
What is or is not necessary for salvation is always the issue. Sola scriptura? The Tradition? You see, this is what hooks us as well. Since no priest can save me, who cares if that minister is female or male? I ain't no Donatist, you know. So, the sacrament reveals itself. My salvation belongs to God.
Now, if someone can show me the theotic failure consistant with a female presider at the eucharist...maybe I'll consider.
Not so sure about the 'hyper' part (though the frequency and length of these comments may suggest that) but you could see me as a sub-species of traditionalist.
ReplyDeleteYes, Tripp, I'm onto your game, running me round to wear me down. :) A chat room would be nice or better still sitting down with a couple rounds of drinks or a bottle of good Georgian wine like the Russians do (I love Kindzmarauli). You don't strike me as a teetotalling Baptist.
As I wrote in The Family Letter nowhere in scriptura does it say sola so the default is tradition, and as I wrote in Hoosier Musings of course God isn't limited to the visible church and holy orders but they are his normal means of grace. Of course the priest doesn't save you; Christ does. He's only a link in a connexion to Christ through the apostolic ministry.
Oh I said "hyper Traditionalist" to make the distincition from what I have understood your position to be. So, hearing an implied criticism of Vatican II from you was unexpected.
ReplyDeleteSo many times now...so many times I have had the whole apostolic tradition thang explained to me I still don't get it. It is so utterly beyond my experience. Ordination has to do with the individual gifts revealed in the life of the believer...and the affirmation of the worshiping community. There is nothing about bishops performing this function...the affirmation.
ReplyDeleteAt my ordination, all gathered extended their hands to bless me in my vocation...ordained or not, Baptist or not.
So, I get lost in specific witness of the succession. It feels, I know this is perhaps much, arbitrary to me. Do you KNOW that the hands have been, well, handed down from bishop to priest to priest to priest? No. You take it on faith. The historical actuality is not as important as the faithful intention.
But I am still confused.
Ordination has to do with the individual gifts revealed in the life of the believer...and the affirmation of the worshiping community. There is nothing about bishops performing this function...the affirmation.
ReplyDeleteAs is, this is lacking in the Catholic view (sorry!) but this and the traditional understanding aren't mutually exclusive! I'm sure I've read something Orthodox that said something like this, something to do with the grace given through the bishop's cheirotonia activating what was already in the ordinand by grace of his baptism.
Re: taking it on faith, well, yes. And I understand there are two Catholic opinions on the apostles, either they were 1) bishops or 2) not bishops but above them, sui generis. Anyway, we know which churches have an unbroken claim to this succession. And this has spread so far and gone on so long that wherever the chain has broken, the church eventually has filled in the gaps. Echoes of Orthodox economy here. (Even though the church is in some grand sense 'sacrament' this is not the same as declaring ELCA and Methodist pastors the same as priests!)
Would I say that you, or women ministers, received no grace, no blessing of any kind at your ordination? No. But that's not the same as the apostolic ministry. (Another Orthodox echo: we know where the church is but dare not say where it is not.)
[pedantry] 'Bishop to priest to priest' wouldn't pass on the succession; it's bishop to bishop, though technically you're right as the bishop has the sacramental priesthood in its fulness; the order of priests historically is derived from the bishop. [/pedantry]
Here are some recent thoughts from me and two others on Vatican II. Of course a 'hyper' wouldn't be having this conversation so in a way your distinction is right, Larry.
ReplyDeleteTripp, if the Episcopal Church doesn't recognise your orders - sorry, but historically that would make sense - then have you got concelebration and open Communion at Reconciler? AFAIK there's no official intercommunion of ECUSA with the American Baptists nor with the Evangelical Covenant Church. (Those of us with long historical memories recall the Open Pulpit Canon in America, South India and the Anglican-Methodist union scheme.)
Thanks for the link it was helpful.
ReplyDeleteWe have open communion, but I think technically not concelebration, since only one of us presides at the altar at a time. It is our understaning that the Episcopal church is fine with open communion but would frown on concelebration.
I suppose that that might technically mean that as far as the bishop might be concerned that a proper Eucharist is in fact only celebrated once every three weeks. Though I am not exactly clear how a Eucharist celebrated by us is understood. Though I know of no prohibition of Episcopalians recieving communion celebrated in non-episcopal churches as is so for Orthodox and I would assume for Catholics.
I realised after last posting that I was answering one of Tripp's points made at this blog - cor, all this switching around! - but as it tied in to Reconciler I left it where it was.
ReplyDeleteIt is our understanding that the Episcopal church is fine with open communion but would frown on concelebration.
As you know the Catholic world doesn't officially do open Communion but there are long-standing examples of intercommunion among churches officially in schism:
As somebody who follows Orthodox doings you probably know there is intercommunion of the laity among churches that don't concelebrate! For example it goes despite the rift, about to officially end, between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Church Abroad. Another example is in the Middle East including my blog correspondent Samer al-Batal, a Melkite Greek Catholic (under Rome) from Syria. His church and their Antiochian Orthodox opposite number are exactly the same way. The laity go back and forth all the time, even baptising and chrismating each other's children (and of course there's loads of intermarriage)... but the clergy don't concelebrate, the only real division.
But this world agrees that receiving in a non-episcopal church, sorry, doesn't make sense, and you're right that RCs are not allowed to. Just like the Orthodox.
Just for kicks...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wfn.org/2003/09/msg00097.html
But I cannot find the report itself online. It was supposed to be completed in 2004.
Pax!
Oh, right...no concelebration. Nope. And I think Larry covered that base pretty well. And I don't hold too strong a grudge against the Anglicans for saying my ordination is not valid...well, for ministry in the ECUSA at least.
But with my liturgical tastes, I hope for a dispensation! ;-)
best regards, nice info » »
ReplyDelete