A Short Reply to a Detailed Query

 

Here’s the latest reply.  It will likely be the last.  See the previous posts here and here and here.

 Well, I guess we will continue to disagree. I think we are closer to the Anglicans than the Orthodox, in fact it will take the moving of mountains to unite with the east.  As to the papacy and how it works and all that, I think history will prove me right in so far as the way we understand how the Church changes over time–in terms of governance and procedural issues, and what radical choices we may have to make as we move into the future.  Please note  that today’s Feast Day is that of Francis of Assissi, who literally rebuilt the Church at a time when the Church was disregarded by most people, especially the poor, as having no relevance or meaning to them or society at large.  The Church was for the rich and powerful and could care less for anything else, but power.  Francis began a radical change within…something which may be needed today.

Do have a good day, and I hope you too can get in a round.

I was hoping for some specifics responses, but…

 

Answer Me This Fr.

 

Here is additional correspondence (see previous related posts here and here) to the good Fr. after his reply:

Dear Father,

Thank you for your prompt response to my comments.

Firstly, the Anglican Communion is internally chaotic and we are likely to see major schisms particularly regarding issues of sexual sin.  The Anglicans are struggling with defining their “truth” without a doubt.  They, in my humble opinion, are in a state of moral confusion.  They require our prayers. 

However, reunion with the Anglican Church, in my readings is not merely a matter of “discipline and governance.”   The issues of the nature of the papacy and its primacy are dogmatic are they not?  Seems to me that the CCC is very clear with regards to the papacy: 

881

The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.⁴⁰⁰ “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.”⁴⁰¹ This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.  

882

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”⁴⁰² “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

The fact that some “Catholic” theologians would question the structure of the Church and the nature of the papacy in no way diminishes the authoritative teaching, does it? (Recall that when Cardinal Arinze spoke at Georgetown recently about very traditional and long held views of the Church regarding the nature of the family, most of the ”theologians” left the stage or made some other form of protest.  And this is not an isolated event.  Many theologians make no attempt to think with the Church and with a Catholic heart.)  What form of papacy except the present form could possibly be consistent with the Church’s understanding of herself? 

“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.”

The ordination of women creates a great rift between the Catholic and Anglican Churches. Female ordination is dogmatically inconsistent with the Church’s teaching is it not? 

“When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: “She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

I do not view the ordination of women as an issue of discipline and governance.  It cuts right to the heart of the nature of the priesthood.  We may disagree on this issue, but I think there is little doubt where Rome stands on this matter.

Perhaps you are more optimistic than I, but me thinks that you would view the issues regarding reunification of the Anglicans as procedural and not doctrinal.  I could not disagree more that we are “mere inches on a scale” away from the Anglicans.

And if you feel that we are closest to the Anglican Church, how far must we be from the other (approximately 30,000) other Protestant denominations? 

Regarding the Orthodox Churches, what dogmatic issues besides the authority of the pope and the Nicene Creed separates the Churches?  I recall JPII referring to the Roman and Orthodox Churches and the “right and left lungs” of the Church.  These sisters have been sneering at each other since the Muslims took Constantinople. Surely you are not suggesting that these issues present a greater obstacle to reunification than the issues between Rome and London.

Anyway, have a great week and I certainly hope that you can get in a few rounds of golf this week.

In Christ,

I’ll post a reply if received.