Sentire Cum Ecclesia

There is a kind of political correctness that says we should ban all religious celebrations from the public square for the sake of interfaith harmony. In general, that is not a position supported by the various faiths, who counter with “everyone should be able to celebrate their own festivals”. Then there is yet another approach which says “Everyone should celebrate everyone else’s festivals”. Well, how about we each have the freedom and commitment to celebrate our own festivals, while at the same time wishing other communities well as they celebrate their own festivals? It might look a bit like this (from a variety of faith communities and organizations in South Australia, including the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide):

Now, can we expect something similar for Passover and Ramadan?

Pastor Mark has responded to my post on “Mere Ecclesiology” with this post “Abscondita est Ecclesia”. I made a brief reply. You can go there to read that discussion (as Christmas is coming up, I am happy to “gift” Pastor Mark with a bit of traffic from this site).

My main point in my reply to that post (which concerns the “hidden” nature of the Church) is that a strong ecclesiology ought to be able to give some real substance and meaning to the phrase “the Church teaches…”. Unless the “Church” is in some sense a real visible and definable human society, I can’t see how it can act as an agent of Christ’s teaching office. It is significant that the Augsburg Confession says “WE believe, teach and confess…”, meaning, “we evangelical congregations”, rather than “The CHURCH believes, teaches and confesses…”.

Last night, my daughter “graduated” from her Catholic primary school. The event was a big “Graduation Mass”, attended by all the families and friends of the year 6’s. It focused, as one would expect, on the children. It was a celebration of the last seven years of their lives and of the school community. It was, of course, very emotional and touching.

I just kind of wish it wasn’t a mass.

Apart from the fact that very many of the people who attended would not have been practicing Catholics (if they were, our attendances on Sunday would be five times a high as they are), there was the simple fact that our Lord Jesus Christ, who is present “body and blood, soul and divinity” (as they say) in the Eucharistic species, was not the focus. Everything was focused on the kids and on the school.

There is a passage in “Light of the World”, where the interviewer, Peter Seewald, cites Ratzinger’s Way of the Cross meditations at the Colosseum on Good Friday 2005:

How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realising that he is there!

I felt a bit like that last night. The liturgy of the Sacrifice of the Mass was incidental to the main event: the kids’ graduation.

The other thing that deeply saddened me was the liturgy itself. There were just so many levels on which it failed to be what the Church’s liturgy should be. None of them in themselves were really horrendous; but the accumulated effect was a little sad. The people were not asked to stand or kneel for the Eucharistic prayer; they sat right through it. The parts of the mass (with the exception of the Lamb of God) were not sung. The “theme” was “Butterflies”. The First reading from Thessalonians was billed as a reading from the Old Testament. The priest wore white vestments (early Christmas?). The “hymns” were MP3 recordings of songs that none of those attending knew; they were difficult to sing, of dubious quality as liturgical song; and even my own children felt them to be a little childish. Effectively it became a matter of listening to the songs played through the audio system rather than anyone actually participating by singing.

I know all that all sounds a bit picky, but the overall effect was a bit shabby. I wonder which of us in our professional capacities would serve up to our clients substandard unprofessional work and then justify it by saying “we want to be at the level of the people”? Only the Church does liturgy. Why can’t we do it well? Why can’t our schools make it a priority to form choirs and train musicians to lead the people in song? Why can’t they train servers to attend at the altar? Why can’t the parish use the school masses as an opportunity to teach the school community how to celebrate the liturgy? Why do we expect less from a school mass than we would on a Sunday Mass?

I know. Grumble, grumble, grumble. Why can’t you say something positive for once, Schütz? You’re such a Grinch.

Which reminds me of a story that a friend told me recently, of having been to a Catholic wedding mass in which the Second Reading was (wait for it) from Dr Seuss. “Is that allowed?”, he wanted to know. “No,” I answered, “It’s called an “abuse””.

If Dr Seuss were given the chance to have his say on the matter, I wonder if it would go something like this:

What you do is not right
What you do is not good
We should do what is right
We should do what we should.

Over at “The Swag”, Fr Eric Hodgens has a piece called “Reflections on an Ordination Golden Anniversary”, in which he says:

“We are the Gaudium et Spes priests. We went into the seminary at the highest rate in living memory. We were ordained between 1955 and 1975 – in double the numbers our parishes required. Most of us were from the Silent Generation with a few years of Baby Boomers at the end. We took Vatican II to heart.

We changed from being priests called and consecrated by God to being presbyters called and ordained by the Church – the People of God…

We have experienced the awakening 60s, the exciting 70s, the suspicious 80s, the depressing 90s and the imploding 00s. During the 1980s we became aware that a lot was going wrong. Ordinations suddenly dropped after 1975. We started to lose parishioners – first from Mass then from affiliation. Both of these changes had mixed social causes.

Worse! Discordant decisions were coming down from the pope. Priestly celibacy, despite being highly contentious, was reasserted by Paul VI in 1967 without discussion. In 1968 Humanae Vitae was a shocking disappointment. Most of us never accepted it. Paul VI began appointing bishops opposed to the council’s ethos. This was most notable in Holland which had become a trailblazer in implementing the council. Paul killed that initiative and we are all the worse off for that. The whole trend was demoralizing.

Then came John Paul II. Charismatic in front of the TV camera; brilliant at languages; but – out of touch in scripture and limited in theology, a bad listener and rock solid is his self-assessment as God’s chosen man of destiny.

…Benedict XVI has continued the reversal of Vatican II. He is imposing a new English translation of the Sacramentary on a resisting English speaking constituency. This may very well backfire because many priests are not going to implement it. Benedict has received back bishops from the schismatic Society of St Pius X. He has encouraged the Tridentine Mass in Latin. He has reintroduced kneeling for communion on the tongue at his public Masses – all deliberate key pointers to regression from the spirit of Vatican II. To the priests who embraced Vatican II they are iconic insults.

Then he has the nerve to decree a Year for Priests in 2009 with St John Vianney as patron. Like Fr. Donald Cozzens, many felt they were being played…”

Etc. etc. etc.

Well, Happy Anniversary, Fr Hodgens and co. Let us just say that we too are counting the years…

I recently saw one of the pastors of my wife’s Lutheran parish carrying around a copy of C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”. Five minutes later both he and I were in conversation with a non-Christian of Muslim background who was asking about what the Christians believed about free will and predestination. Well. Those two questions instantly divided “mere Christianity” into at least three radically different camps…

Pastor Mark has a post on this topic over at Glosses from an Old Manse (“Heretics, Sectarians and ‘The Lutheran Difference'”). He writes:

As I have stated in these glosses before, I don’t believe there is such a thing as “basic Christianity”, in the sense of some pre-theological, non-doctrinal, supposedly pure version of Christianity that we could discover if we could just somehow jump over 2000 years of church history. People who advocate “basic Christianity” are either naïve, confused, ignorant, duplicitous and/or probably about to start a new sect. We might wish it were so, but what we actually have in this world, whether we like it or not, are several exclusive versions of Christianity that happily share a good deal of orthodox doctrine inherited from the early church, but who also each hold exclusive articles of faith which are deemed important enough for the faith and life of their adherents to warrant ecclesiastical separation from those who teach otherwise. This separation is deemed necessary to preserve the doctrinal purity of the body. Unless a church body has completely relativised all doctrine, it holds to some form of this position, because it understands that doctrine and life are intimately related. Even liberal churches enforce doctrinal standards!

For the most part, I agree with him – although I don’t think I would have called C.S. Lewis “naïve, confused, ignorant, [or] duplicitous”; perhaps he was a little over hopeful, and you can’t blame a convinced Christian for being that. However, the interesting part of Pastor Mark’s description is his belief that those who advocate a “mere Christianity” are “probably about to start a new sect”. At this point, his comments take a decidedly ecclesiological turn:

This has always made perfect sense to me, even when I was a “seeker” and then a neophyte. It seemed to me then that a church body which did not care enough about what it believed to delineate itself in some way from other, differing church bodies probably didn’t believe in much to begin with and wasn’t worth exploring (in actual fact there are “post-Christian” churches like this, but that is a subject for another post). …And so, in spite of all I hold in common with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, namely the creeds of the early church and the heritage of the Fathers, I could not in good conscience join in worship which included prayers to Mary and the saints. Apart from the lack of scriptural warrant for such prayers, I suspect that at heart this practice reflects a different understanding of the Gospel. Similarly, as much as I share a passion for justification by grace through faith alone with the Reformed, I couldn’t commune at a Lord’s Supper with a congregation which does not confess that the bread and wine are the true body of Christ given into death for us and the real blood of Christ shed for the forgiveness of our sins. To do so would be, to my mind and conscience, a denial of the Gospel (the sacrament is the Gospel…for me).

At first glance it might appear that the major issue for Pastor Mark is doctrine, ie. what kind of Christianity (if not “mere Christianity”) is espoused by these different groups. But in fact, there is a deeper question, which is “To what degree can I call any of these groups “church”?” He goes on to say:

It is not that I am questioning the salvation of Catholics or Orthodox or Presbyterians. They certainly have enough of the Gospel to be saved, it’s just that they don’t have enough of the Gospel for me to recognise them as church in an unqualified sense. Their doctrine needs to be informed and reformed by the Gospel before I could acknowledge them as such. I write in the first person, but it should be said that such is the position held by all confessional Lutherans. In holding this view we are following the Augsburg Confession, which states that “[t]he Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is taught purely and the Sacraments are administered rightly.” [my emphasis]

When Pastor Mark refers to recognising other groups of Christians as “church in an unqualified sense”, I hear echoes of Dominus Iesus which spoke of “Churches in the proper sense”. Despite Protestant protest against the Catholic Church using such an idea, unless one is to resort to a kind of “mere ecclesiology” to match one’s “mere Christianity”, there has to be a sense in which one defines what “a true Church” (or “the true Church”) is, and thus be able to judge whether or not a particular group of people IS a “Church” in either a qualified or unqualified sense.

Lutherans work with a clear definition of “the Church”. As Pastor Mark quoted from the Augsburg Confession, it is the “congregation…in which the Gospel is taught purely and the Sacraments are administered rightly.” Well and good, only that definition requires other definitions: ie. what is the “pure teaching” of the Gospel and how does one administer the Sacraments “rightly”? Who is to judge? It cannot be “the Church” that judges, since “the Church” which we are trying to define here. I mean suppose I were to establish a Network of Right Thinkers. In the constitution I put: “The Network of Right Thinkers shall be an association of all those who think rightly”; and then I go on to say “Right Thinking shall be determined by the Network of Right Thinkers”. You would immediately see the problem there, wouldn’t you? Of course, a Lutheran will reply that it is not the Church, but the Scriptures, which determines “pure teaching” and “right administration”, but that merely shifts the definition of “Church” to the “congregation which interprets the scriptures correctly” and you can see that that has exactly the same problems as my constitution for the Network of Right Thinkers.

The problem with a definition of “the Church” (or “a Church”) along these lines is that it is remarkably susceptible to just the kind of thing that Pastor Mark is warning us against, namely, sectarianism. Take for instance his statement above, that he “could not in good conscience join in worship which included prayers to Mary and the saints.” Why not? Until the 16th Century, the intercession and invocation of Mary and the saints was a standard and universal feature of Christianity, both East and West. But then someone suggested a “mere Christianity” which not only did not include this ancient and universal practice, but actually forbade it. The next thing is that those who forbade this practice – suspecting “that at heart this practice reflects a different understanding of the Gospel” from their own “mere Christianity” – began “a new sect”. Their “exclusive articles of faith” were “deemed important enough for the faith and life of their adherents to warrant ecclesiastical separation from those who teach otherwise” – ie. the rest of Christendom as it existed in their day.

I know there were other issues than just the intercession and invocation of the saints that led to the separation of the “evangelicals” from communion with the Bishop of Rome, but, keeping this separation in mind, and keeping in mind that it came about because of what this particular group believed to be “pure Christianity”, listen now to what Pastor Mark says next:

But the blame for [this division] lies…with the teachers of outright false doctrine who have led others – sometimes millions – astray (the heretics), and with those who have separated from their mother church without due reason (the sectarians). It is the promotion of false doctrine that is deplorable, because, at the least, it renders the proclamation of the Gospel in a particular church impure; and, at its worst, it undermines and overthrows the Gospel completely. Sectarianism, on the other hand, which is almost as deplorable as false teaching and heresy, is a sin against love and tears the outward body of Christ apart for no valid reason.

Umm. I agree entirely with what Pastor Mark is saying about “mere Christianity”, but I am surprised that – although he himself clearly describes the problem – he doesn’t see how this leads directly to “mere ecclesiology”, ie. sectarianism. Nor does Pastor Mark seem to appreciate that the community to which he belongs actually originated in just this manner, that is, first by teaching a version of “mere Christianity” (the “Gospel purely taught”) and then by separating from “their Mother Church”. (Although I hasten to add, as Vatican II does, that “men on both sides were to blame”, and that we cannot blame the division on those who belong to these communities today).

It seems to me that

1) if we are not all to be subsumed into a “mere ecclesiology” to match our personally chosen version of “mere Christianity”, we need some other grounds for determining what “a Church in the proper sense” is.

2) that that body which is truly “Church” – and which thus exercises the teaching authority which Christ gave to his Church – is the body which can rightly claim to teach the Gospel purely and to administer the sacraments purely.

Of course, you can see where this is leading. We Catholics hold that

1) Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him; [and that]

2) The Churches which [even if] not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. (Dominus Iesus §17)

Whatever else may be said of these definitions (and it is noteworthy that in “Light of the World”, Pope Benedict stresses that full communion with the Bishop of Rome is not regarded by the Catholic Church as “of the essence” of a “true particular Church”), it may at least be said that it is an objective definition which is not susceptible to alteration by anyone claiming to know what “mere Christianity” is. Any group of Christians who have a bishop who has not broken from the ancient succession, and thus a valid priesthood and Eucharist, is a “true particular Church”. This is a strong and robust ecclesiology which ensures that the faith that is taught is cannot become a “mere Christianity” of the lowest common denominator, a Christianity which is “naïve, confused, ignorant, duplicitous and/or probably about to start a new sect”, a Church in which the Gospel is “taught purely” and the Sacraments “administered rightly”.

The recent news that a priest in the Archdiocese of Melbourne has been proclaiming his belief in the validity of the ordination of women from the pulpit has created a bit of a stir here in the Antipodes. Not quite as big a stir as could be imagined, however, as both the priest concerned and the powers that be in the Archdiocese appear to be handling the situation without unnecessary hoohah in the media.

I recently had a conversation with a woman religious, who objected to John Paul II’s ruling (continued under the present pontificate) that the Church’s rejection of the validity of the ordination of women is not open to debate. “We should be able to discuss it”, she opined. Well, yes, by all means, let us “discuss” the Church’s teaching, but not in such a way that the matter would be “considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

Truth be told, we discussed the issue of the ordination of women at the Theology at the Pub Q&A session the other night. We discussed it in order to explain why the Venerable Pope John Paul II absolutely ruled out the possibility. Father Reynolds, on the other hand, not only “discussed” the issue, but publically proclaimed from the pulpit that he was

”convinced in my heart that it is God’s will that we should have women priests … I feel prompted by the Holy Spirit to share my position publicly, and yet very reluctantly.”

Somewhat embarrasingly, according to Barney’s report,

“He conceded that as ”an insignificant little parish priest” he lacked the profound theological training to contradict papal teaching, ”but some things you just know in your heart, in the core of your being”.

Actually, it isn’t rocket science. Sister Sara Butler put it well when she outlined the three major reasons in the magisterial teaching why women cannot be ordained:

The reasons include these three: Christ’s example of choosing only men as apostles (the argument from Scripture); the Church’s constant practice of choosing only men, in imitation of the Lord (the argument from tradition); and the consistent teaching that this pattern is “in accordance with God’s plan for His Church” (the witness of the Magisterium).

She distinguishes these “fundamental reasons” from the various theological “explanations” given by theologians. Anyone, even “an insignificant little parish priest” should be able to understand the “fundamental reasons” if not the more taxing “theological explanations”.

In any account, I mention all this because of a recent email from Dr William Tighe (a man who, rather than run a blog, runs an email discussion list encompassing an amazing number of significant persons across the ecumenical landscape today), drawing my attention to two blog posts:

http://matthewlbecker.blogspot.com/2010/12/womens-ordination-and-lcms-partner.html

http://gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2010/12/selk-reports-of-our-demise-have-been.html

These both concern the discussion of the ordination of women among theologically conservative Lutherans, in particular, the SELKD (a German Lutheran Synod separate from the ELKD), the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (currently headed by my one time colleague and friend, Rev. Dr. Matt Harrison), the Lutheran Church of Japan, and the Lutheran Church of Australia. All of these bodies are – or have been – in communion with one another. Yet they are in different particular situations. Both SELK and LCMS have “opposite numbers”, ie, the ELKD and ELCA respectively, which DO ordain women. What distinguishes them from their mirror images is that they do not ordain women. Thus, if anyone in LCMS or SELKD were to decide that they were “pro-WO”, the logical thing would be for them to switch to the “dark side”! However, this seems to be less the case in the SELKD than it is in the LCMS. In LCMS, support for the ordination of women is regarded in much the same sense as it is in my own communion, ie. as a grave heresy. But it appears that there is significant support for WO in SELKD.

On the other hand, the Lutheran Church of Australia also gets a mention. The LCA has no “twin”/”mirror”/”opposite number”, and yet the situation seems to be very much that of SELKD: the motion to ordain women as pastors comes up again, and again, and again at General Synod, but never reaches the required magic proportion of +66% in favour. This is an important issue for me, as the 2000 Synod debate on this matter acted as a catalyst for my conversion to the Roman Communion.

The posts to which Dr Tighe has directed us above indicate two very different approaches to the question of the ordination of women in the democratically structured Lutheran Churches. The first is the position of the LCMS: The ordination of women is forbidden by God’s Word and any suggestion to the contrary is heresy. This used to be the position of the Lutheran Church of Australia, as expressed in their “Thesis of Agreement” uniting the two Lutheran Synods in this country in the year that I was born, 1966:

Though women prophets were used by the Spirit of God in the Old as well as in the New Testament. 1 Cor. 14:34,35 and I Tim. 2:11-14 prohibit a woman from being called into the office of the public ministry for the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. This apostolic rule is binding on all Christendom; hereby her rights as a member of the spiritual priesthood are in no wise impaired.

Ironically, it is just this resolution that was tested by the 2000 Synod, and again at the 2006 Synod. A pattern has emerged of the issue being discussed at “every other” General Synod of the LCA. How long will the issue be discussed? Until the vote finally is in favour by a majority of %67? OR: will the LCA ever have the gumption to reaffirm their 1966 statement that the Scriptures “prohibit a woman from being alled into the office of the pubic ministry”, and to declare any statement to the contrary as “heresy”?

It gives me no pleasure to watch what is happening among my beloved Lutheran brothers and sisters on this matter. However, it is an indication to us in the Catholic Church of the wisdom of Pope John Paul II in prohibiting any discussion of the issue of the ordination of women to the priesthood as if such a thing was or ever could be possible.

Recently in a combox comment, Cardinal Pole asked about the most recent round of talks of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church held in Cyprus in 2009 and Vienna earlier this year on “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium”. He wanted to know when we could expect to receive a paper from this round of meetings, and I replied that I expected that something would be in the next issue of PCPCU “Information Service”. I now revise my opinion on that, as it seems that, aside from a general communique, we can’t expect any definite statement for some time yet as the Commission is nowhere near completing this subject.

What I have found is this comprehensive report by Tom Henegan at Reuters’ Faith World blog below. It is several months old now, but I only came across it yesterday. It reports comments by the joint presidents of the Commission, Archbishop (now Cardinal) Koch and Metripolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon, and is perhaps the best that one can hope for for now. I think you will find their comments very interesting. I include [my comments].

Catholics and Orthodox report promising progress in latest round of unity talks
Sep 24, 2010 18:33 EDT

Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians reported promising progress on Friday in talks on overcoming their Great Schism of 1054 and bringing the two largest denominations [???]in Christianity back to full communion. Experts meeting in Vienna this week agreed the two could eventually become “sister churches” that recognize the Roman pope as their titular head but retain many church structures, liturgy and customs that developed over the past millennium. [this is perhaps a little inaccurate, and see my comments on the term “sister churches” below]

The delegation heads for the international commission for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue stressed that unity was still far off, but their upbeat report reflected growing cooperation between Rome and the Orthodox churches traditionally centred in Russia, Greece, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

“There are no clouds of mistrust between our two churches,” Orthodox Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon told a news conference. “If we continue like that, God will find a way to overcome all the difficulties that remain.” Archbishop Kurt Koch, the top Vatican official for Christian unity, said the joint dialogue must continue “intensively” so that “we see each other fully as sister churches.”

The rapprochement of the Catholic and Orthodox churches must be the slowest “big story” on the religion beat. About 30 theologians meet in a joint Catholic-Orthodox commission about once every year or so to see how far they have come in reassessing Christian history so that the Great Schism can be laid to rest and the two churches can move forward to full communion. These talks produced their first joint declaration back in 1982 and have had ups and downs since then. The push towards unity has clearly gained momentum since Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill took office on February, 2009. The goal is still far off – hey, they have 1,000 years of division to get over — but they’re getting close enough now that an agreement now looks increasingly possible.

Kirill and Pope Benedict are both conservative theologians keen to work together to have Christianity’s voice heard in Europe, a continent they both think should return to its Christian roots. They’ve met in the past, including when Kirill visited Benedict at the Vatican in his former role as “foreign minister” of the Russian church. They haven’t yet held a summit meeting, so to speak, but religion reporters in Europe keep waiting for signs they will finally set a date for their first top-level talks. The Russians aren’t the only Orthodox in the game, but their size gives them a kind of veto power that has to be considered in this equation. The Vatican has good relations with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul and the new Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Irinej has invited the pope to Belgrade.

Given the long-term importance of these talks for Christianity’s two largest denominations, our busy Vienna bureau chief Boris Groendahl agreed to trek out to the city’s suburbs to cover a news conference with the two delegation leaders and Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. You can read his full report on the news conference here.

Boris sent me such long verbatim excerpts from the news conference that I wanted to post them here to give an idea of how the Catholic and Orthodox theologians imagine that this long process towards unity might develop. There’s no guarantee, of course, that they will eventually reach full communion. But the two sides already broke the ice back in 2007 when their meeting in Ravenna, Italy produced an agreement in which both sides recognised the Bishop of Rome as the traditionally most senior bishop in Christianity. They made further progress last year in Cyprus. The intensity of the work involved and the upbeat tone of the delegation heads’ comments today says even this slowest of religion stories is moving ahead in interesting ways.

Here are excerpts from what Archbishop Kurt Koch, head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, and Orthodox Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon had to say. Koch spoke in German (my translation here) and John spoke in English.

Metropolitan John of Pergamon: “There are no clouds of mistrust between our two churches. Our predecessors and especially the leaders of our churches both on the Catholic and the Orthodox side have prepared a way for a friendly and brotherly discussion. I must assure you that this spirit prevailed in our discussions. And therefore I wish to assure that if we continue like that, God will find a way to overcome all the difficulties that remain [ie. if we learn to trust and love one another], and bring our two churches – the most ancient churches, the churches that share the same ecumenical past, the same traditions, the same sense of the church — to bring us to full community.”

Archbishop Karl Koch quoted Pope John Paul’s comment about the two churches being the two lungs of Christianity and said they had to practise breathing together. “This is a difficult but necessary theme because we lived together in diversity but also in unity in the first millennium, but a second millennium in which we grew apart lies between us.

“Pope Benedict XVI already said in his famous lecture in Graz in 1976 that we cannot expect more from the Orthodox than what was practised in the first millennium. So the basic discussion is about how these churches lived in the first millennium and how we can find a new (common) path today. This discussion needs the necessary free space (‘Freiraum’) and it needs patience. .. I know some people can be impatient but patience is an expression of love. People know from personal experience what it means when two people in a marriage drift apart — we have 1,000 years to work through. We must and we want to take new paths because Jesus gave us the mission to live together.”

In the Q&A session, Koch said: “I think there is certainly a recognition that in the early days of the church, there was a practice or an order of things in which Rome had a special role, a primary role. We still have to speak about what that meant and implied. Ravenna was the great recognition that there must be a protos, a first one, at all levels — at the level of the local church, of the region and on the universal level. Now we are at the universal level and we’re looking more closely what this protos at this level looked like at that time. This is something new.

Metropolitan John: “We are still studying the first millennium, we have not reached a conclusion yet. But the main and most important thing we have discovered in the discussions is that what we decided in Ravenna seems to be confirmed by the history of the first millennium.”

“In other words there in the first millennium there was a recognition of the special role that the Bishop of Rome played in the church. There was also the fact that the Bishop of Rome did not operate without consultation with other bishops in his own area as well as universal. So we are discovering that in history and this is an important aspect.

“The Church of Russia was absent from Ravenna for reasons that had nothing to do with our dialogue. That didn’t leave Ravenna because of the dialogue. What we decided in Ravenna was already prepared by previous meetings in which the Russian Church participated also. Therefore essentially there is no problem … On the whole the basic ideas of Ravenna are accepted by all the orthodox churches.

Asked which model of unity the talks used, Archbishop Koch said: “That will be the big question for the future. First we started with each church describing its vision on unity. The Catholic and the Orthodox visions probably won’t be the same. We saw the questions we will have to discuss — papal primacy and synodality. The Catholic Church has a strong primacy (of the pope) but probably has not developed synodality as much as the Orthodox Church. The strength of the Orthodox Church is its synodality, but the doctrine of primacy is not that strong. We will be able to enrich each other. The basic principle of ecumenism is the exchange of gifts. The first step is to tell each other individually how we imagine unity would look like. [This is an important point, and just as relevant for our dialogue with Protestants. Unless we share a common vision of what “unity would look like” we will not be singing from the same hymn book in our dialogues. I think this was behind the recently reported comments of Cardinal Koch regarding the predominant Protestant vision of “mutual recognition”] For the Catholic Church, of course, unity without the Bishop of Rome is unimaginable. That’s because the issue of the Bishop of Rome is not just an organisational question, but also a theological one. The dialogue about just how this unity should be shaped must be continued intensively. Unity means that we see each other fully as sister churches. [This seems to me to define a little what Koch meant in his recent statement about the inadequacy of the Protestant “mutual recognition” model – obviously he sees a “sister church” relationship as more than just “mutual recognition”] Just like the (Catholic) church in Vienna is the sister church of the church in Basel, the Orthodox Church will be a sister church for us.” [Here Koch is drawing a picture that I cannot quite agree with and which I don’t think quite agrees with the CDF Note on the Expression “Sister Churches”. In that note, it was pointed out that “the expression sister Churches” can only be used “to describe the relationship between particular Churches”, and not between “THE Catholic Church”, envisaged as the Una Sancta, and “THE Orthodox Church” – if the latter expression is even a valid one. Thus, the Note says that “It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.”]

“I think the pope himself in thinking in this direction. He’s said to the Anglicans who want to come back that they would be able to keep their tradition and celebrate their liturgy. [Yet, the Ordinariates will absolutely NOT be understood as “sister churches” except in the sense that they are local particular churches who are “sister churches” with other local particular Catholic Churches.] So he’s said himself that there should be diversity. That will be the second step. It’s far too early (‘Zukunftsmusik’) to ask each other how we can do this together.”

Metropolitan John: “I’m in full agreement with what Archbishop Koch said. The model will emerge in the future. We don’t operate with a preconceived model. It will be the result of a certain … I would say — I won’t call it reformation , that is too strong — but adaptation from both sides. What the Orthodox must strengthen is their universal unity and also their conception of primacy. And perhaps the Catholic side must strengthen more the dimension of synodality. If those two things happen the result will come close to a conception of a church which is united in its basic structure in the right way.

“Of course we have to be united in faith too. [This is important.] There are certain fundamental things which have to be clarified in maters of faith. The rest can be left to diversity. There are customs, liturgical customs and other customs, that can be left to each church freely to arrange. As far as the Orthdox council is concerned we recognize that autocephaly is a problem, especially when it is associated with nationalistic aspects. [It is also important that this is recognised.] But I am glad to say that we’re making good progress towards a pan-Orthodox council and we hope that very soon we will be able to invoke such a council…

“The next meeting will depend on the progress we make on this subject that we are discussing now. It looks as if we are going to have a slight change of our subject, namely to make the historical material focus on theological questions more. This will require another period of preparation by subcomittees and debate — that is probably a period of one year. We hope that in two years’ time we can convene again as a plenary commission. But this will depend on the progress we make.” [this is why I am convinced now that we won’t see a full report for some time.]

Archbishop Koch: “Today and tomorrow we will continue discussing our future work. This dialogue can be fruitful for the reality of living together. The more we recognise each other as sister churches and live in unity, the more that surely will have its effect on daily life. [What Koch says next is very important – I have observed this fact on this blog elsewhere:] With the Orthodox churches, we share almost everything in terms of faith but we have a different culture because of the division we experienced in the past millennium. With the churches of the Reformation, we don’t have that much in common in faith matters but we have the same culture. Cultural differences can play a role that don’t exist on the theological level. Here’s where we need to meet each other directly. We used to have a strange feeling about Russians because we never sat down with one and drank a glass of vodka. [So true! One of my mottos for the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission is “Eating and Drinking our Way to Peace and Harmony!] Learning depends on meeting each other.”

A journalist asked if there would be a joint “Vienna document” like there was a joint statement after the 2007 Ravenna meeting. “I think that’s unrealistic,” Archbishop Koch said. “The right time will come. There will certainly be a communique, but paper is patient.” [So don’t hold your breath.]

The theologians planned two church services to end their week, a Catholic Mass in St. Stephen’s Cathedral on Saturday evening and a Divine Liturgy in the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity on Sunday.

There is a very interesting post by Dr Adam DeVille at “Eastern Christain Books” on the comments of Pope Benedict in Peter Seewald’s interview/book “Light of the World”. His analysis reveals that there is actually a lot more about Catholic/Orthodox relations in this book than there is about condoms…

The Archdiocese of Melbourne has a new page on its website on the introduction of the Revised English Missal.

It includes a downloadable “Missal Postcard” with the following information on it:

Make a note of these dates in 2011:

January 1 – Learn to sing new words
• We can sing the new translation of the… Lord Have Mercy, Gloria, Creed, Holy Holy, Acclamations and Lamb of God from January 1.
• Check the Archdiocesan Missal website below for the new and revised Mass settings.

February – June An opportunity
• Time to learn a little more about the Mass.
• Check the Missal website for ideas.

June 12 – Learn to say new words Pentecost Sunday
• We’re encouraged to say the new translation of the above from June 12.
• Plus the new translation of familiar responses by the people.
• The words will be on a people’s Mass card.
• We can introduce them all at once, or gradually.

November 1 – The official starting date All Saints Day
• We’re all expected to be using the revised Mass texts.

Check the Revised Roman Missal website at www.evangelisation.org/missal
Deepening our love and understanding of the Mass

I hadn’t heard about the new music for the Ordo being introduced already in the new year. This page on the Archdiocesan website gives you all the necessary info and lots of links, but apart from the unaccompanied chants (which can be downloaded), all the music must be ordered in hardcopy.

According to the website:

New Mass Settings
In addition to the chant settings which are contained in the revised Roman Missal, the Australian Bishops have recommended the following six settings suitable for various Congregations:
1. Mass of St Francis by Paul Taylor (publisher TBA)
2. Mass of Our Lady Help of Christians by Richard Connolly (CanticaNova) (see www.canticanova.com)
3. Missa Magis by Christopher Willcock (Oregon Catholic Press [OCP])
4. Mass of Christ the Redeemer by Bernard Kirkpatrick (OCP)
5. Mass Shalom by Colin Smith, rev. Paul Mason (Willow Connection)
6. Mass of Glory and Praise by Paul Mason (Willow Connection
It is anticipated that these 6 settings will eventually be included in the new National Liturgical Music Resource being prepared by the National Liturgical Music Board to replace the Catholic Worship Book (1985) and Gather Australia (1995).

Of particular interest is that Willow Connection seems to have scored the deal for publishing many of the new Australian settings. Is this a case of the National Liturgical Commission harnessing Willow Connection’s all-pervasive influence for the power of good?

Time to get cracking then, and work out what musical setting will be used in your parish!

Paul G. has written in to me with these comments. I thought they were a fair reflection, and the links may be interesting to readers.

Hi David,

did you hear the debate on ABC radio this morning between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair? [No, I didn’t, so thanks for this!] CH is making his exit from this earthly stage a very well discussed and analysed process.

The only place on the internet I have found so far for the debate is
http://www.munkdebates.com/home.aspx
where you seem to have to pay a few dollars for it. [Does any one have a “free” link?]

There are some post-debate comments by Christopher Hitchens at
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/11/debating_tony_blair_on_faith.html

and Tony Blair at:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/11/tony_blair_on_religion.html

I thought there were some interesting paths Christopher Hitchens went down. He criticised religious people who reject some Christian beliefs like angels, an afterlife etc. He said “you are halfway out the door already, you don’t need my help”. Frankly, I agree with him completely.

He also mused that you can’t really follow Jesus just by reading the reports of his life, you need some guidance by people here, who call themselves Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Again, hear, hear.

He has a hangup on being subservient to God, which he sees as eternal servility. Blair’s comment was that it is not servility, it is obligation.

Hitchens also calls it a spurious argument for religion when you say religious people do good works. He says this is avoiding the issue, and even very misguided people do good things. I think he is missing the point here. Even though non religious people can of course do good, the argument is that a religious faith helps people to do good.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting debate, I don’t know if it will be repeated again on the ABC.

regards,
Paul

Thanks, Paul! I did find this comment by Hitchens in the link you gave us above telling:

Tony Blair…did exemplify, to an unusually high degree, the tendency of modern believers to eclecticism and to the public presentation of what often turns out to be a virtually private or personal definition of religion. (I find this doubly odd in the case of a man who went to a lot of trouble to convert to one of history’s more disciplined and rule-bound churches, at a time when its latest pope is striving to reinvigorate a highly traditionalist interpretation, but let that pass for now.)

Mmm. Good question.