We should be one

[Philip_B]

http://www.premier.org.uk/News/Worl...uld-be-one-says-Pope-Francis-and-Justin-Welby

Church of England and Catholic Church should be one, says Pope Francis and Justin Welby
Thu 06 Oct 2016
By Aaron James
The Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Francis are "undeterred" in their efforts to see the their two churches formally reunited.

The pair were speaking at an evening service in Rome commemorating decades of ecumenicalism between the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church.

The celebrations included highlighting 50 years since the opening of the Anglican Centre in Rome, a place where Catholics and Anglicans discuss and study theology, pray, minister and socialise together.

In the last 50 years the two churches have come to agree on several issues including baptism, Communion, how to use the Bible and mission and evangelism.

However the two church leaders admitted there were still "serious obstacles" and they "do not yet see" a way forward on other key theological issues, for example the role of women in church ministry and issues surrounding sexuality.

Despite differences the pair spoke of a "common faith" and a "common baptism", referring to believers in each other's churches as "brothers and sisters".
About the Author
Aaron James
Aaron works as a multimedia journalist at Premier.
I know I have a heart for unity. I believe the Nicene Creed has a heart for unity. I am certain that Jesus has a heart for unity. I personally believe that oecumenism should be one of the marks of mission. This statement went alongside the joint act of sending out 19 pairs of bishops to the four corners of the globe.

 

[SkyWriting]

My wife and I have physical and mental differences as well.
I don't see why everything needs to be identical.

 

[All4Christ]

My wife and I have physical and mental differences as well.
I don't see why everything needs to be identical.

Physical and mental differences are not the same as theological differences.

 

[com7fy8]

Philip > What constitutes true oneness? If you target only or mainly ideas, is it possible to be missing oneness in God's love?

 

[~Anastasia~]

There are steps being taken to reunite various denominations/Churches. (At least among the more Traditional ones - the ones at the other end of the spectrum seem to be endlessly fracturing instead.)

All have issues to overcome - some more and some less. I actually have more hope for the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox among all the possible ones I'm aware of.

Agreement on essentials is necessary. Otherwise there is no true communion.

In the scenario above, if the Anglicans and Catholics were to reunite, what would happen to female Anglican priests? (Are they called priests? I apologize for my likely error.) Are they to be summarily defrocked because of their sex? I doubt Anglicans would be pleased. Or will Catholic congregations suddenly find themselves with a woman priest? Again, I doubt this would be acceptable. And this is just one issue ...

 

[SkyWriting]

Physical and mental differences are not the same as theological differences.

Sure.

 

[Philip_B]

Thanks for people contributing. I think that we might consider various modes of Oecumenism.

Part of it comes down to respect and listening to one another. Part of it comes down to doing what we can with one another, hoping to open doorways as we learn to value and trust each other.

I think the idea of trying to glue the Church back together and simply thinking that this monochrome solution will cover all bases is silly. I think the idea that we can flick a switch and turn it on is also silly. And also unhelpful is thinking we have everything spot on so when everyone comes to us we will be one.

Agreement on essentials is necessary. Otherwise there is no true communion.

I think that this is profoundly important. I think we need to understand what is essential. It seems clear to me that CF identifies the Nicene Creed as one of those essentials (with variation). As an Australian Anglican I am aware that our rendition of the Nicene Creed is linguistically different to the ICET/L texts. Although I don't mind the rendition I would prefer that we all said the same words as far a possible, when using the same language of course.

(Are they called priests? I apologize for my likely error.)

No error. The Anglican Church embraces the three ancient orders of ministry, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and I think that it has been important for us. When they were talking in Australia about bringing about a union of Churches the Anglicans stumbled on this, holding it to be integral to our catholic nature and apostolic character.

I have no doubt that the Ordination of Women is an issue where the Anglican Church has moved (either from or within) the received tradition. It has been a struggle, where we have moved to fast for some and not fast enough for others. I think it has brought us both grief and blessing. I think early years were marked by some women in the role acting out what they perceived of a male priesthood, but now we are seeing some women bringing something special to the charism of priesthood which has the opportunity to enrich our life. In a time of transition, I fear we have not maintained our commitment to support those who still struggle with this issue.

I don't see any great reason why institutional amalgamation should be seen as the only way to walk together. I think we should be able to embrace a more polychromatic approach, that does allow difference, and still embrace the unity Christ prayed for.

On the article I posted, I am not sure what sending out 38 Bishops (19 matched pairs) is really about, however it does pose a hot point to talk about. It is a point were ABoC and HF acted together, and does show a lead in the matter of mutual respect, and a desire for unity.

What constitutes true oneness? If you target only or mainly ideas, is it possible to be missing oneness in God's love?

I am not exactly sure where you are headed here, but I think some of what I have written shares some of my thoughts.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...if the Anglicans and Catholics were to reunite, what would happen to female Anglican priests? (Are they called priests? I apologize for my likely error.) Are they to be summarily defrocked because of their sex? I doubt Anglicans would be pleased. Or will Catholic congregations suddenly find themselves with a woman priest? Again, I doubt this would be acceptable. And this is just one issue ...

It is a two way street. It is not just a matter of Catholics accepting Anglican's differences, but also Anglican's accepting Catholic's differences. We are so close in many ways but so far away in others. I believe the best that can be hoped for is mutual respect, charity, and welcoming each other at the celebration of the Eucharist. For other matters, I suspect that neither body is willing to turn back.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I support reunification, obviously. It's hard to picture a lot of Anglican bodies/parishes going along with it but Anglicanism in America at least is holding on by its fingernails. Reunification with Rome makes a lot of sense from a numerical standpoint at least in America.

I can't envision Rome reversing itself on "female ordination" so the Episcopalians devoted to that will have to decide if extinction is more attractive than swallowing their pride. The Church is already willing to accommodate married Episcopalian clergymen as a special exception so it's not like Rome is being completely inflexible here.

It doesn't look like Anglicanism in America has a very bright (or much of a) future ahead of it so if not the Catholic Church, they'll have to consider joining up with somebody.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I support reunification, obviously. It's hard to picture a lot of Anglican bodies/parishes going along with it but Anglicanism in America at least is holding on by its fingernails. Reunification with Rome makes a lot of sense from a numerical standpoint at least in America...It doesn't look like Anglicanism in America has a very bright (or much of a) future ahead of it so if not the Catholic Church, they'll have to consider joining up with somebody.

Exactly. We would have to join up with "somebody," not necessarily Rome. I think many of us would chose a different path than the Church of Rome. I know I would. See, we have our differences with you, too. In my church, probably 1/3 are former RC's. They have reasons they left and unless the RCs change, there is no turning back for them. I'd sooner be Orthodox or go back to my Methodist roots. Rome is likely unwilling to change the things about them that are stoppers for me.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Exactly. We would have to join up with "somebody," not necessarily Rome. I think many of us would chose a different path than the Church of Rome. I know I would. See, we have our differences with you, too. In my church, probably 1/3 are former RC's. They have reasons they left and unless the RCs change, there is no turning back for them. I'd sooner be Orthodox or go back to my Methodist roots. Rome is likely unwilling to change the things about them that are stoppers for me.

That said, on issues like, for example, women priests, the Orthodox are if anything much less likely to change their position than the Roman Catholics. The lack of an Orthodox Vatican II, and the extreme wrath, fury and contention caused by the recent Pan Orthodox Council in Crete, over issues that seem trivial to the point of non-existance viewed from without, and this being accompanied by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese recently issuing new service books where a rubric explicitly prohibits saying "Lord have mercy" instead of "Kyrie Eleison" and mandates the continued exclusive use of a few other Greek liturgical phrases and forbids their translation, suggests that Orthodoxy is either unwilling to change, or just as likely, unable to change, since the bishops can scarcely agree on anything, and when they do manage to come to a consensus, they are vetoed by the laity.

So anyone thinking of crossing the Bosphorus, the Nile, the Jordan, the Aras or the Euphrates, into any of the ancient Eastern churches, should be well aware of how effectively immutable they are. For some, like myself, this was a great attraction.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Exactly. We would have to join up with "somebody," not necessarily Rome. I think many of us would chose a different path than the Church of Rome. I know I would. See, we have our differences with you, too. In my church, probably 1/3 are former RC's. They have reasons they left and unless the RCs change, there is no turning back for them. I'd sooner be Orthodox or go back to my Methodist roots. Rome is likely unwilling to change the things about them that are stoppers for me.

From what I can gather, the conservative exodus the Episcopal church suffered a decade or two ago included a pretty big number of clergy. Supposedly something like 1 in 10 Orthodox priests in America are former Episcopalian priests who made the switch. I read that number somewhere or other ages ago but never bookmarked it. Anyway, Orthodoxy could be a viable alternative for disaffected Episcopalians... provided they don't mind accepting some pretty different doctrines and liturgies than they're used to. It's a pretty big switch to make. And I'm skeptical of how many are actually prepared to do that.

I guess we'll see how things play out but I'd be shocked if less than 25% of today's relatively young conservative Anglicans don't convert to Catholicism within the next ten years. The ground is shrinking beneath their feet and soon they won't have many other options. This isn't the main reason I converted to Catholicism after my year-long stopover with the Anglicans but it was a consideration.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That said, on issues like, for example, women priests, the Orthodox are if anything much less likely to change their position than the Roman Catholics. The lack of an Orthodox Vatican II, and the extreme wrath, fury and contention caused by the recent Pan Orthodox Council in Crete, over issues that seem trivial to the point of non-existance viewed from without, and this being accompanied by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese recently issuing new service books where a rubric explicitly prohibits saying "Lord have mercy" instead of "Kyrie Eleison" and mandates the continued exclusive use of a few other Greek liturgical phrases and forbids their translation, suggests that Orthodoxy is either unwilling to change, or just as likely, unable to change, since the bishops can scarcely agree on anything, and when they do manage to come to a consensus, they are vetoed by the laity.

So anyone thinking of crossing the Bosphorus, the Nile, the Jordan, the Aras or the Euphrates, into any of the ancient Eastern churches, should be well aware of how effectively immutable they are. For some, like myself, this was a great attraction.

I'm a little confused by the second part of this. We have new service books (Greek Orthodox) and we still say Lord Have Mercy. It's too soon for me to be positive, but I don't think any part of the Liturgy seems to be in Greek exclusively always. We always change up so that part of the Liturgy ( and different parts over time) are in both languages.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I am certain that Jesus has a heart for unity. I personally believe that oecumenism should be one of the marks of mission.

Yes, Y'SHUA has a lot to say about HIS disciples.
It's not much like most things worldwide published today.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...Orthodoxy could be a viable alternative for disaffected Episcopalians... provided they don't mind accepting some pretty different doctrines and liturgies than they're used to. It's a pretty big switch to make. And I'm skeptical of how many are actually prepared to do that...

I nearly became Orthodox before becoming Episcopalian. I think it's not the big switch you think it is.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I'm a little confused by the second part of this. We have new service books (Greek Orthodox) and we still say Lord Have Mercy. It's too soon for me to be positive, but I don't think any part of the Liturgy seems to be in Greek exclusively always. We always change up so that part of the Liturgy ( and different parts over time) are in both languages.

You are getting newer ones: http://byztex.blogspot.com/2016/08/changes-acoming-to-greek-parishes-in-us.html?m=1

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I nearly became Orthodox before becoming Episcopalian. I think it's not the big switch you think it is.

There is a huge difference in church discipline however; without wanting to kick over a political hornet's nest, let us simply note that Episcopal clergy praise people for emgaging in lifestyles that would result in almost all Orthodox priests denying them the Eucharist; for that matter many Episcopal clergy will communicate the unbaptized, whereas in Orthodoxy, I do not believe you could find an Orthodox priest in the US who would knowingly communicate a committed Episcopalian or receive one by confession and not chrismation, (this was not historically true, by the way; the relationship between the old Protestant Episcopal Church, the Antiochians, and later, ROCOR, was often quite warm; St. Rafael of Brooklyn for a time commended his flock to Episcopalian parishes in remote parts of the US, and as recently as the 1940s ROCOR considered the Episcopal Church to have valid orders).

This it should also be noted has been in part influenced by disaffected Episcopalians angry with their church crossing the Bosphorus instead of the Tiber.

Amusingly enough I have heard of cases of Orthodox disaffected by the severity of our fasting, the length of the services or most frequently, the unyielding moral rigorism and stalwart immutability in the face of contemporary social trends crossing the Thames, and also some Episcopal parishes have attempted seriously to serve the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (either really stretching the limits of the so called "Rite III" in the 1979 BCP or simply disregarding it); there is a video on YouTube of an Episcopal parish that managed to pull it off reasonably well (except their deacon could not sing very well that evening, which naturally bombed the litanies, but that can happen in an Orthodox parish if the deacon gets a cold or laryngitis or otherwise loses his voice; I respect them greatly for having their actual deacon sing the litanies rather than offloading this function to a member of the choir).

 

[All4Christ]

I would strongly disagree with the changes to the Greek Liturgy if they are followed through - and I imagine there would be some strong responses.

You are getting newer ones: http://byztex.blogspot.com/2016/08/changes-acoming-to-greek-parishes-in-us.html?m=1

I'm a little confused by the second part of this. We have new service books (Greek Orthodox) and we still say Lord Have Mercy. It's too soon for me to be positive, but I don't think any part of the Liturgy seems to be in Greek exclusively always. We always change up so that part of the Liturgy ( and different parts over time) are in both languages.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I would strongly disagree with the changes to the Greek Liturgy if they are followed through - and I imagine there would be some strong responses.

I expect so. If its any consolation, there is always (usually?) the Antiochian option (and increasingly they are using Byzantine chant)...

 

[All4Christ]

I expect so. If its any consolation, there is always (usually?) the Antiochian option (and increasingly they are using Byzantine chant)...

Personally I'm in the OCA - and the other option I'm considering if we move is a ROCOR...which in and of itself would have its own liturgical language challenges for me. That said - the ROCOR is Orthodox, and I'm thankful there is a church around that are where we may move. I personally am a very big proponent for liturgies in the vernacular of the people - so I may have particularly strong feelings. I get it that there are some phrases that don't translate well into English...but Lord have Mercy? @~Anastasia~ , I'd be interested to hear what happens in your parish - and if the changes are implemented.