Posted on 02/28/2005 11:48:55 AM PST by sionnsar
At this point, the obvious question to be asked is: why not Eastern Orthodoxy? Everything that I have said so far can be found within the Orthodox Church–a liturgical theology, a concern for beauty, and the fundamental theological vision of the Patristic heritage. So, why should catholic-minded Anglicans not go really East? Why should they muck about with “hybrid”, confused “uniatism”? Why not go for the “real thing”? As I have tried to show, Anglicans and all Byzantine Christians share much in common. It is not without significance that at one point in the twentieth century some Eastern Orthodox saw Anglicanism as either being, or having the potential for being, an authentic expression of Christian orthodoxy in Western garb.
There is indeed a great deal which links the Anglican and Orthodox experiences, and yet despite deep similarities, there is a major historical difference with regard to how Orthodox and Anglicans have related to the centre of the universal Church, to the Chair of Peter. The Church of Rome, is not the “mother” of the Eastern Churches. She is the “elder brother” in relation to the Churches of he East. In addition to having a universal pastorate and solicitude for the entire catholic Church, Rome is also more immediately the spiritual mother of the Western Churches, including Ecclesia Anglicana. It, therefore, seems odd for Anglicans to seek a fuller expression of their inherent catholicity without reference to the Petrine See or by “by-passing” it in turning to the Orthodox East.
Moreover, there is an important theological issue at stake. The 1998 Agreed Statement of the second Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, The Gift of Authority, issued significantly on the feast of St. Gregory the Great, represents the culmination of intense ecumenical work and a series of dialogues between the two communions dealing with the question of authority in the Church. One of the crucial elements within The Gift of Authority which needs to be taken very seriously is the way in which it deals with the issue of the primatial ministry exercised by the Bishop of Rome.
The 1998 Agreed Statement asserts that Anglicans (or at least, some Anglicans) can affirm that the Bishop of Rome has a “specific ministry concerning the discernment of truth, as an expression of universal primacy.” The document calls upon Anglicans to “receive” the teaching, that under certain circumstances, the Bishop of Rome has a duty to discern and to make explicit the faith of the whole Church from within the college of those who exercise episcope. This can be seen as authoritative teaching which has the same guarantee of the Spirit as do the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils. Moreover, the reception of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome “entails the recognition of this specific ministry of the universal primate. We believe that this is a gift to be received by all the churches.”
The “gift” of papal primacy, it seems to me, is not just about power, authority and jurisdiction (although at its worst, it must be admitted, it can be reduced to these). Rather, at its deepest psychological and existential level, it is about accepting the universal pastorate of Peter and the universal mission of Paul to preach the gospel to every nation. It is about the refusal to reduce the Church to an ethnic, tribal or cultural religious phenomenon. It is about accepting the Church as a life of communion and unity rooted in, and reflecting, the God who is simultaneously plurality and unity.
The ecumenical affirmations of the 1998 Agreed Statement are indeed highly significant. If at this time in history Anglicans genuinely can accept them and believe them to be true, then, it seems to me, to make no sense to side-step communion with Rome in favour of communion with the Orthodox Churches, which have yet to be able to make this kind of official affirmation regarding the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. The Orthodox Churches have yet to be able to respond in any kind of unified manner to the Pope’s invitation in Ut Unum Sint to discern with him a way to articulate the Petrine ministry which will genuinely serve the unity of the Church. For centuries, it has been the Orthodox gripe that Rome was unwilling to engage in dialogue on this issue. Now that Rome has issued the invitation for dialogue, the Orthodox Churches, unfortunately, seem ill-prepared to rise to the occasion. Hopefully, this will change in the years to come, first on the level of official theological dialogue and then in the internal life of the Orthodox Churches themselves.
Whatever further nuances, developments and synthesis may still be needed with regard to papal ministry, these, I would suggest, can best and most appropriately be engaged in from within the boundaries of communion, not in schism. This, of course, is the Byzantine Catholic approach, one that may be able to provide Anglicans with an ecumenical model for legitimate diversity in unity within catholic communion. Like historic Anglicanism, Byzantine Catholicism also accents collegiality and synodality, while still affirming the primacy of the pope. Former Anglicans might well find Byzantine Catholic Churches, especially the small Russian Byzantine Catholic Church or the larger Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchal Church, to be a conducive environment where continuing convergence in theology can be achieved within a framework of authentic plurality and communion.
The ideal situation with regard to Anglicans and the restoration of full communion would be, in my opinion, the creation of an entire “uniate” Anglican Ritual Church, similar to that the Eastern Catholic Churches. Since, however, this seems unlikely in the near future, the next best option, it seems to me, would be the assimilation of former Anglicans to a Catholic Church which is like them in ethos and is in full communion with the Holy See.
Of all the Byzantine Ritual Churches, my own, the tiny Russian Church, probably fits the cultural bill the best. The Russian ethos and the English ethos, even in their attenuated American forms, are very much compatible with one another. Russian Catholicism, moreover, is largely a “convert phenomenon” and does not suffer from the ethnic problems that other Eastern Churches frequently experience. Moreover, since it is the youngest member of the family of Byzantine Catholic Churches and did not go through the painful experience of Latinization, it has maintained the Byzantine Orthodox heritage perhaps more fully and more integrally than some other Byzantine Churches have been able to do. Ever since the 2nd Vatican Council, the Holy See has, in fact, repeatedly called upon all Eastern Churches to recover, where lost, their authentic traditions.
In any case, out of love for the unity of the Church, both Anglicans and Byzantine Catholics have had experience in living as “bridge communities,” striving to unite diverse, and seemingly divergent, elements and drawing them into “wholeness” and communion. Isn’t this in fact what the struggle for “catholicity” really means? The possibility of Christian communities bringing together and synthesizing the Anglican experience of living within the mainstream of Western culture and intellectual life, the Eastern tradition of theology, spirituality and worship, and real communion with both the Latin Church and the Petrine centre of Christianity bristles with truly exciting possibilities!
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. discussion? ping
A lot to digest. Bump for later.
Agreed!
Why not a Uniate Anglican Communion?
Seriously, why not?
The Anglican Rite is beautiful.
There is no reason to lose it.
Rome has accomodated it, and welcomed in a Book-of-Common-Prayer form of Catholic liturgy.
There is no reason to lose the beauty that is High Church Anglicanism by trying to turn Englishmen into Greeks and Russians. Greeks and Russians have beautiful rites, but they're Greek and Russian.
A Uniate Anglican Communion would preserve and even accentuate all that is beautiful in Anglicanism, while eliminating the terrible wear and tear and drift of politics. The Curia is not going to be arguing about ordaining adulterous homosexual bishops or blessing gay marriages any time soon.
Indeed, everything of beauty and substance would be protected and enhanced, and all of the terrible rot would be excised.
Uniate Anglicanism.
Do that, and I would attend your church in preference to the Novus Ordo down the street. There is sometimes truth in beauty.
Well, as Argus noted, there is a lot to digest here. But here is one suggestion that actually works. Instead of analyzing all of these churches, why not entrust this to our Lord and ask Him to guide you to where He needs you to be. Here's a practical approach that should be adjusted according to your own circumstances.
Make a list of all the Roman Catholic and Eastern (more on this below) Catholic Churches within a certain driving distance of your home. Include the Orthodox Churches as well.
Call each church for their mass times, then sit down and organize your schedule.
Begin with the church nearest to your home and plan to attend the following Sunday. You should commit to visiting each church at least 3 times. Bring home their bulletin. This will give you some insight into the various ministries at that parish. You should also stop after mass and chat with the parish priest.
Take a notebook and make three columns. In the left one, write down the name of the church. To the right, mark one column "Likes" and the other "Dislikes". After 3 visits, you should have a good feel for the parish and you can then move to the next one on your list.
Also check with the Catholic Diocese to see if they offer the old Latin Mass as an Indult. A word of caution in this regard. Make sure the church is offering the 'official' Indult Tridentine Latin Mass.
As most of us realize, the Church began in the East. Our Lord lived and died and resurrected in the Holy Land. The Church spread from Jerusalem throughout the known world. As the Church spread, it encountered different cultures and adapted, retaining from each culture what was consistent with the Gospel. In the city of Alexandria, the Church became very Egyptian; in Antioch it remained very Jewish; in Rome it took on an Italian appearance and in the Constantinople it took on the trappings of the Roman imperial court. All the churches which developed this way were Eastern, except Rome. Most Catholics in the United States have their roots in Western Europe where the Roman rite predominated. It has been said that the Eastern Catholic Churches are "the best kept secret in the Catholic Church."
Many people forget - or do not realize - that Christianity came from Judaism. As the church expanded beyond the realm of Judaism, it adapted itself to the people and cultures in which it took root. This cultural adaptation resulted in the 22 different rites of the Catholic Church today.
To this day, the Maronite Church retains its Jewish roots more than any other Catholic rite, as evidenced by its use of Aramaic/Syriac and by the prayers which remain faithful to Semantic and Old Testament forms.
It preserves the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith, administers the seven sacraments, follows all Papal rulings and is characterized by devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to Mary, the Blessed Mother. The differences that strike a newcomer are mainly connected with the Divine Liturgy, which is reverent, beautiful and deeply spiritual.
To learn more about the Western and Eastern branches of the Catholic Church, CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES
To locate an Eastern Catholic Church in your community, CLICK HERE
Kolokotronis and Kosta50, along with the other Orthodox members of the forum, are far more deft at explaining the differences between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Church.
Actually, I myself am focused on the material in this sales pitch, not in the sales pitch itself. There are statements and assertions in this (to me) interesting article that I'm trying to digest, and not being intimately familiar with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm not sure I grasp it all.
I'm not sure I understand this proposal. An Anglican Communion acknowledging the supremacy of the pope (after googling the term)?
Thank you very much for the informative response, btw.
Have you heard of Western Rite Orthodoxy? http://www.westernorthodox.com/western-rite
There is an Anglican "Use" Catholic option that some in the traditional Anglican camp are aware of. Their liturgy is based on the 1929 Book of Common Prayer. Many of the Anglican Use churches are in Texas, but there are a few in the Northeast too. There is a push to get an Anglican Use Catholic parish in Scranton, PA through a former Episcopalian pastor who converted to Catholicism.
The post at #12 is what I was talking about.
Basically, Episcopalians who come back into communion with Rome and still use the Anglican Liturgy, thereby creating what amounts to Anglican Rite Catholicism: in union with Rome, but not Roman Catholic.
I've come across references to it, but not details the way I have the Roman Anglican Rite. Thank you for the link!
It is quite close to the 1928 liturgy, except for certain necessary changes and the introduction of one (to my ear) very clunky element from the 1979 BCP.
Yeah, the Second Eucharistic Prayer is similar to the 1979 BCP. From what I've heard, it's not really used though.
As for the Greek being in Communion with the one, true Church of Rome, that depends on whether they are the eastern Catholic, or the schismatic orthodox sects. The former are, despite Rome best efforts since 'reform' and the mid-60s to say otherwise perhaps, in yet another misguided effort to appease the latter. And the latter are still in schism.
Rome has accomodated it
If "Rome" ever truly "accomodated" Cranmerism, or the like, then it would not be by the mind of The Church, but of certain churchmen cut off from The Church. There are certain ugly realities today. But to a lesser extent, they've always afflicted Holy Mother Church. Heretics are often those who once wore the collar. Now I understand your distaste for 'new order'. Obviously I share that, as well. I think the answer, also obviously, is not in the Greek necessarily, but in The Holy Mass.
There's also a problem just with the works of the Greek. Corruptions were found everywhere over the centuries in the Greek NT. Some scripts have been lost. But it was not by settling on just one that Martin, and those relocated to Rhemes, included this word and not another. Ideally, in other words, one would simply turn to the authorized copies of the Orthodox Greek. An irony, perhaps, where both Catholic Greek and Schismatic Greek sects lay claim to preservationism.
That's impossible. The Church ruled against the words of the Anglican. If it is the very same, and violates the tenets of the Faith similarly, then how can it be Catholic? It would specificaly be anti-Catholic, yes? unless some key words have been changed, and perhaps much else. You say it hasn't.
Thanks. Bump for re-reading later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.