Discipline, Doctrine & Dogma – Roman & Anglican

Dialogue

I once strongly considered converting from Roman to Anglican Catholic, likely agonizing as much as

Newman, who converted in the opposite direction. How many times have progressive Roman Catholics

been sarcastically urged to go ahead and convert by various fundamentalistic traditionalists since our

beliefs were "not in keeping with the faith?"

After all, while there has never been an infallible papal pronouncement to which I could not give my

wholehearted assent, I otherwise do adamantly disagree with many hierarchical positions such as regarding

a married priesthood, women priests, obligatory confession, eucharistic sharing, divorce and remarriage,

artificial contraception, various so-called grave & intrinsic moral disorders of human sexuality or any

indubitable and a priori definitions employed vis a vis human personhood and theological anthropology.

At times, I truly have wondered if I belonged to Rome or Canterbury, and I suspect many of you have, too,

and, perhaps, still do? My short answer is: You're already home; take a look around ...

In other words, for example, take a look, below, at some excerpts from the September 2007 report of the

International Anglican - Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission: Growing Together in Unity

and Mission: Building on 40 years of Anglican - Roman Catholic Dialogue.

Does anyone see any differences in essential dogma? Are some of you not rather surprised at the extent of

agreement, especially given the nature of same?

Are our differences not rather located in such accidentals as matters of church discipline or in such moral

teachings where Catholics can exercise legitimate choices in their moral decision-making? (To be sure,

there

has been a creeping infallibility in such differences but there have never been infallible pronouncements

regarding same.)

"As we shall see, reputable theologians defend positions on moral issues contrary to the official teaching of

the Roman magisterium. If Catholics have the right to follow such options, they must have the right to

know that the options exist. It is wrong to attempt to conceal such knowledge from Catholics. It is wrong to

present the official teachings, in Rahner's words, as though there were no doubt whatever about their

definitive correctness and as though further discussion about the matter by Catholic theologians would be

inappropriate....To deprive Catholics of the knowledge of legitimate choices in their moral decisionmaking,

to insist that moral issues are closed when actually they are still open, is itself immoral." See:

“Probabilism: The Right to Know of Moral Options”, which is the third chapter of __Why You Can

Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic__ and available online at

http://www.saintjohnsabbey.org/kaufman/chapter3.html

For those who have neither the time nor inclination for a long post, you can safely consider the above as an

executive summary. My conclusion is that we belong neither to Rome nor Canterbury, but to the Perfector

and Finisher of our faith. And I'm going to submit to

ever-ongoing finishing by blooming where I was planted among my family, friends and co-religionists,

enjoying the very special communion between our Anglican, Roman and Orthodox traditions, the special

fellowship of all my Christian sisters and brothers, and the general fellowship of all persons of goodwill.

I gathered these excerpts together to highlight and summarize the report but recognize these affirmations

should not be taken out of context. So, I made this url where the entire document can be accessed:

http://tinyurl.com/35p69h

to foster the wide study of these agreed statements.

Below is my heavily redacted summary.

In reflecting on our faith together it is vital that all bishops ensure that the Agreed Statements of ARCIC are

widely studied in both Communions.

The constitutive elements of ecclesial communion include: one faith, one baptism, the one Eucharist,

acceptance of basic moral values, a ministry of oversight entrusted to the episcopate with collegial and

primatial dimensions, and the episcopal ministry of a universal primate as the visible focus of unity.

God desires the visible unity of all Christian people and that such unity is itself part of our witness.

Through this theological dialogue over forty years Anglicans and Roman Catholics have grown closer

together and have come to see that what they hold in common is far greater than those things in which they

differ.

In liturgical celebrations, we regularly make the same trinitarian profession of faith in the form of the

Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

In approaching Scripture, the Christian faithful draw upon the rich diversity of methods of reading and

interpretation used throughout the Church’s history (e.g. historical-critical, exegetical, typological,

spiritual, sociological, canonical). These methods, which all have

value, have been developed in many different contexts of the Church’s life, which need to be recalled and

respected.

The Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church recognise the baptism each confers.

Anglicans and Catholics agree that the full participation in the Eucharist, together with Baptism and

Confirmation, completes the sacramental process of Christian initiation.

We agree that the Eucharist is the memorial (anamnesis) of the crucified and risen Christ, of the entire work

of reconciliation God has accomplished in him.

Anglicans and Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

While Christ is present and active in a variety of ways in the entire eucharistic celebration, so that his

presence is not limited to the consecrated elements, the bread and wine are not empty signs: Christ’s body

and blood become really present and are really given in these

elements.

We agree that the Eucharist is the “meal of the Kingdom”, in which the Church gives thanks for all the

signs of the coming Kingdom.

We agree that those who are ordained have responsibility for the ministry of Word and Sacrament.

Roman Catholics and Anglicans share this agreement concerning the ministry of the whole people of God,

the distinctive ministry of the ordained, the threefold ordering of the ministry, its apostolic origins,

character and succession, and the ministry of oversight.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that councils can be recognised as authoritative when they express

the common faith and mind of the Church, consonant with Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition.

Primacy and collegiality are complementary dimensions of episcope, exercised within the life of the whole

Church. (Anglicans recognise the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury in precisely this way.)

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the ministry of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate is in

accordance with Christ’s will for the Church and an essential element for maintaining it in unity and truth.

Anglicans rejected the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the sixteenth century.

Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal

primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a re-united

Church.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics both believe in the indefectibility of the Church, that the Holy Spirit leads

the Church into all truth.

Both Anglicans and Catholics acknowledge that private confession before a priest is a means of grace and

an effective declaration of the forgiveness of Christ in response to repentance.

Throughout its history the Church has sought to be faithful in following Christ’s command to heal, and this

has inspired countless acts of ministry in medical and hospital care. Alongside this physical ministry, both

traditions have continued to exercise the sacramental ministry of anointing.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics share similar ways of moral reasoning.

Both Communions speak of marriage as a covenant and a vocation to holiness and see it in the order of

creation as both sign and reality of God’s faithful love.

All generations of Anglicans and Roman Catholics have called the Virgin Mary ‘blessed’.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that it is impossible to be faithful to Scripture without giving due

attention to the person of Mary.

Genuine faith is more than assent: it is expressed in action.

Given our mutual recognition of one another’s baptism, a number of practical initiatives are possible. Local

churches may consider developing joint programmes for the formation of families when they present

children for baptism, as well as preparing common catechetical resources for use in baptismal and

confirmation preparation and in Sunday Schools.

Given the significant extent of our common understanding of the Eucharist, and the central importance of

the Eucharist to our faith, we encourage attendance at each other’s Eucharists, respecting the different

disciplines of our churches.

We also encourage more frequent joint non-eucharistic worship, including celebrations of faith,

pilgrimages, processions of witness (e.g. on Good Friday), and shared public liturgies on significant

occasions. We encourage those who pray the daily office to explore how celebrating daily prayer together

can reinforce their common mission.

We welcome the growing Anglican custom of including in the prayers of the faithful a prayer for the Pope,

and we invite Roman Catholics to pray regularly in public for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leaders

of the Anglican Communion.

We note the close similarities of Anglican and Roman Catholic lectionaries which make it possible to foster

joint bible study groups based upon the Sunday lectionary.

There are numerous theological resources that can be shared, including professional staff, libraries, and

formation and study programmes for clergy and laity.

Wherever possible, ordained and lay observers can be invited to attend each other’s synodical and collegial

gatherings and conferences.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a rich heritage regarding the place of religious orders in ecclesial

life. There are religious communities in both of our Communions that trace their origins to the same

founders (e.g. Benedictines and Franciscans). We encourage the

continuation and strengthening of relations between Anglican and Catholic religious orders, and

acknowledge the particular witness of monastic communities with an ecumenical vocation.

There are many areas where pastoral and spiritual care can be shared. We acknowledge the benefit derived

from many instances of spiritual direction given and received by Anglicans to Catholics and Catholics to

Anglicans.

We recommend joint training where possible for lay ministries (e.g. catechists, lectors, readers, teachers,

evangelists). We commend the sharing of the talents and resources of lay ministers, particularly between

local Anglican and Roman Catholic parishes. We note the

potential for music ministries to enrich our relations and to strengthen the Church’s outreach to the wider

society, especially young people.

We encourage joint participation in evangelism, developing specific strategies to engage with those who

have yet to hear and respond to the Gospel.

We invite our churches to consider the development of joint Anglican/Roman Catholic church schools,

shared teacher training programmes and contemporary religious education curricula for use in our schools.

END OF EXCERPTS regarding stated agreements

Below are excerpts recognizing DIVERGENCES regarding: 1) papal and teaching authority 2) the

recognition and validity of Anglican Orders and ministries 3) ordination of women 4) eucharistic sharing 5)

obligatory confession 6) divorce and remarriage 7) the precise moment a human person is formed 8)

methods of birth control 9) homosexual activity and 10) human sexuality.

Thanks,

JB

BEGIN EXCERPTS regarding stated disagreements:

While already we can affirm together that universal primacy, as a visible focus of unity, is “a gift to be

shared”, able to be “offered and received even before our Churches are in full communion”, nevertheless

serious questions remain for Anglicans regarding the nature and

jurisdictional consequences of universal primacy.

There are further divergences in the way in which teaching authority in the life of the Church is exercised

and the authentic tradition is discerned.

In his Apostolic Letter on Anglican Orders, Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII ruled against the

validity of Anglican Orders. The question of validity remains a fundamental obstacle to the recognition of

Anglican ministries by the Catholic Church. In the light of the

agreements on the Eucharist and ministry set out both in the ARCIC statements and in the official

responses of both Communions, there is evidence that we have a common intention in ordination and in the

celebration of the Eucharist. This awareness would have to be part of any fresh evaluation of Anglican

Orders.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics hold that there is an inextricable link between Eucharist and Ministry.

Without recognition and reconciliation of ministries, therefore, it is not possible to realise the full impact of

our common understanding of the Eucharist.

The twentieth century saw much discussion across the whole Christian family on the question of the

ordination of women. The Roman Catholic Church points to the unbroken tradition of the Church in not

ordaining women. Indeed, Pope John Paul II expressed the conviction that “the Church has no authority

whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”. After careful reflection and debate, a growing number

of Anglican Churches have

proceeded to ordain women to the presbyterate and some also to the episcopate.

Churches of the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church therefore have different disciplines

for eucharistic sharing. The Catholic Church does not permit the Catholic faithful to receive the Eucharist

from, nor Catholic clergy to concelebrate with, those whose

ministry has not been officially recognised by the Catholic Church. Anglican provinces regularly admit to

communion baptised believers who are communicant members from other Christian communities.

Despite our common moral foundations, serious disagreements on specific issues exist, some of which have

emerged in the long period of our separation.

Anglicans and Catholics have a different practice in respect of private confession. “The Reformers’

emphasis on the direct access of the sinner to the forgiving and sustaining Word of God led Anglicans to

reject the view that private confession before a priest was obligatory, although they continued to maintain

that it was a wholesome means of grace, and made provision for it in the Book of Common Prayer for those

with an unquiet and sorely troubled conscience.” Anglicans express this discipline in the short formula ‘all

may, none must, some should’.

Whilst both Communions recognise that marriage is for life, both have also had to recognise the failure of

many marriages in reality. For Roman Catholics, it is not possible however to dissolve the marriage bond

once sacramentally constituted because of its indissoluble

character, as it signifies the covenantal relationship of Christ with the Church. On certain grounds,

however, the Catholic Church recognises that a true marriage was never contracted and a declaration of

nullity may be granted by the proper authorities. Anglicans have been willing to recognise divorce

following the breakdown of a marriage, and in recent years, some Anglican Churches have set forth

circumstances in which they are prepared to allow

partners from an earlier marriage to enter into another marriage.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics share the same fundamental teaching concerning the mystery of human

life and the sanctity of the human person, but they differ in the way in which they develop and apply this

fundamental moral teaching. Anglicans have no agreed teaching concerning the precise moment from

which the new human life developing in the womb is to be given the full protection due to a human person.

Roman Catholic teaching is that the human embryo must be treated as a human person from the moment of

conception and rejects all direct abortion.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that there are situations when a couple would be morally justified in

avoiding bringing children into being. They are not agreed on the method by which the responsibility of

parents is exercised.

Catholic teaching holds that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered and always objectively wrong.

Strong tensions have surfaced within the Anglican Communion because of serious challenges from within

some Provinces to the traditional teaching on human

sexuality which was expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

In the discussions on human sexuality within the Anglican Communion, and between it and the Catholic

Church, stand anthropological and biblical hermeneutical questions which need to be addressed.

END OF EXCERPTS regarding stated disagreements, some of which seem rather incoherent once

considering certain of the agreements (for example, not recognizing Anglican Orders and ministries!

Gimme a break!!!).

Discipline, Doctrine or Dogma? the Roman-Anglican CATHOLIC Dialogue

I like to think of liberal and conservative, progressive and traditionalist, in terms of

charisms, something analogous to pilgrims and settlers. And there is room for the via

media, the middle path, something analogous to bridge-builders, which might be the

loneliest and most difficult for, as Richard Rohr observes, they get walked on by folks

coming from both directions.

Unfortunately, too much of what we see is nowadays is better described in terms of maximalism,

minimalism and a/historicism. I'll unpack those terms below. Too many so-called progressives consider

essential and core teachings as accidental and peripheral; too many so-called traditionalists consider

accidental and peripheral teachings as essential and core. In essentials, unity; in accidentals, diversity; in all

things, charity. (attributed to Augustine)

Ormond Rush writes, in Determining Catholic Orthodoxy: Monologue or Dialogue (PACIFICA 12 (JUNE

1999): "The patristic scholar Rowan Williams speaks of 'orthodoxy as always lying in the future'".

(see http://tinyurl.com/2p5q7w for the article)

Rush continues: Mathematicians talk of an asymptotic line that continually approaches a given curve but

does not meet it at a finite distance. Somewhat like those two lines, ressourcement and aggiornamento

never meet; the meeting point always lies ahead of the church as it moves forward in history. Orthodoxy, in

that sense, lies always in the future. Christian truth is eschatological truth. The church must continually

wait on the Holy Spirit to lead it to the fullness of truth.

Ressourcement and aggiornamento will only finally meet at that point when history ends at the fullness of

time. "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I

will know fully, even as I have been fully known." (1 Cor 13:12)

To unpack this meaning further, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressourcement

In that Pacifica article, Rush draws distinctions between: 1) revelation as propositional, where faith is

primarily assent and revelation as personalist, where faith is the response of the whole person in loving

self-surrender to God; 2) verbal orthodoxy and lived orthopraxy; 3) the Christological and

pneumatological; 4) hierarchical ecclesiology and communio ecclesiology; and 5) monologic notion of

authority evoking passive obedience and dialogic notion of authority evoking active obedience.

Rush then describes the extremes of on one hand,

1) dogmatic maximalism, where all beliefs are given equal weight;

2) magisterial maximalism, where the ecclesial magisterium, alone, has access to the Holy Spirit;

3) dogmatic ahistoricism, where God's meaning and will are fixed and clear to be seen;

and, on the other hand,

1) dogmatic minimalism, where all dogmatic statements are equally unimportant;

2) magisterial minimalism, where communal guidance in interpretation is superfluous;

3) dogmatic historicism, with an unmitigated relativist position regarding human knowledge.

Rush finally describes and commends a VIA MEDIA between the positions.

He notes that the church does not call the faithful that we may believe in dogma, doctrine and disciplines

but, rather, to belief in God.

He describes how statements vary in relationship to the foundation of faith vis a vis a Hierarchy of Truth

and thus have different weight:

to be believed as divinely revealed;

to be held as definitively proposed;

or as nondefinitively taught and requiring obsequium religiosum (see discussion below re: obsequium).

The faithful reception of revelation requires interplay between the different "witnesses" of revelation:

scripture, tradition, magisterium, sensus fidelium, theological scholarship, including reason (philosophy)

and experience (biological & behavioral sciences, personal testimonies, etc).

Rush thus asks: "How does the Holy Spirit guarantee orthodox traditioning of the Gospel? According to

Dei Verbum, 'the help of the Holy Spirit' is manifested in the activity of three distinguishable yet

overlapping groups of witnesses to the Gospel: the magisterium, the whole people of God, and theologians.

The Holy Spirit guides each group of witnesses in different ways and to different degrees; but no one alone

has possession of the Spirit of Truth."

Rush further asks: "The determination of orthodoxy needs to address questions concerning the issue of

consensus in each of these three authorities. What constitutes a consensus among theologians and how is it

to be ascertained? What constitutes a consensus among the one billion Catholics throughout the world and

how is it to be ascertained? What constitutes a collegial consensus among the bishops of the world with the

pope, and how is that consensus to be ascertained?"

As for obsequium religiosum, from http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/orsy3_2.asp

where it is written:

"Accordingly, the duty to offer obsequium may bind to respect, or to submission-or to any other attitude

between the two."

"When the council spoke of religious obsequium it meant an attitude toward the church which is rooted in

the virtue of religion, the love of God and the love of his church. This attitude in every concrete case will

be in need of further specification, which could be 'respect', or could be 'submission,' depending on the

progress the church has made in clarifying its own beliefs. ... [W]e can speak of obsequium fidei (one with

the believing church holding firm to a doctrine) ... [or] an obsequium religiosum (one with the searching

church, working for clarification)."

Thus, on matters of dogma, I give obsequium fidei, and unqualified assent (or submission); this includes

the creeds, the sacraments, the approach to scripture. On matters of moral doctrine and church discipline, I

give my deference (or respect), even as I dissent, out of loyalty, on many issues: married priests, women's

ordination, eucharistic sharing, obligatory confession, various moral teachings re: so-called gravely,

intrinsic disorders of human sexuality; artificial contraception, etc.