I did receive a prompt reply (to my letter) from the Father. Here is the body of the letter in its entirety:
Well, I certainly provoked a lengthy response to last weekend’s homily. As you say, at least someone is listening!My issue in the ecumenical comments I made are not over dogmatic concerns. I have no issue with your comment, and I agree fully with your statement about the Truth lying in Jesus Christ, and I agree with your use of the quote from Magisterium Ecclesiae. I understand that the Anglicans reacted quite strongly against this document for its exclusionary tone. But even they are not arguing on dogmatic grounds, but rather on grounds of governance–and its implications. Which is the point I was trying to make.Truth is not in question here–even for Anglicans. The issue is who speaks for the Truth–and in what ways. Thus my comment on the governance question: who will rule the roost when union comes? As even many of our own theologians question and write about, I question too, that the papacy in its present form must be upheld when union comes. Even historically from the beginning three centuries the papacy was not primary; metropolitan bishops looked to Rome for advice and settlement to arguments. But even then there was a wide range of opinion as to what bishop (or diocesan seat) held sway among the body of bishops. Some believe that the papacy is a primary issue when it comes to re-unification of Christian churches; others hold that a type of federation board with the pope as an equal member will be the solution. In any case, dogma–and thus Truth, is not the issue-nor was I calling it into question, or even suggesting that there are degrees of truth. The issue for ecumenical dialogue today is not so much about dogma, but rather other issues.The seeds for whay may happen in the future for Christian union are being sown today. I’m merely suggesting that we must be inclusive and not exlcusive. We should be arriving at issues we agree on and find ways to resolve the governance issue which has plagued us and Anglicans since the days of Henry VIII. It is no longer a matter of who is at fault on this issue. For Christian union, it seems we should be able to resolve the issues and enable the Anglicans to reunite.For their part, I agree that they are making things difficult with the ordination of women as bishops especially. Again, this is not a dogmatic issue, but one of discipline and governance–issues which can be resolved without changing our basic beliefs.I agree with you–there are not multiple truths. My homily did not call that into question. Rather, the issue is how we are to become inclusive over issues which are not basic and fundamental to our common belief systems. As you are aware, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are separated by mere inches on a scale–unlike the reality between us and the Orthodox, as in the example of the Russian metropolitan who sneered at Pope John Paul II’s suggestion that they have a meeting a few years ago. Much divides us and the Orthodox. I might add that you might be a bit more defined in your description of the Eastern Church. Do you mean Byzantine (which is connected to Rome), or, Orthodox (which is not)?Anyway–a good exchange!Hope you have a good, prayerful autumn season.
Several points. First the homily addressed Christian ecumenism generally and not just the Anglicans. Second the Fr. seems to suggest that the issues which separate the Anglican and Catholic Churches are merely matters of “discipline and governance.” I could not disagree more and I will be replying to these issues and asking some very specific questions regarding the Fr.’s views. I’ll post this and any response that I may get.
In the meantime, feel free to comment on my letter or the response.
