The East, the West, the Papacy, and the ICCEC: A Response to Fr. Matt Mirabile
This is a response to Fr. Matt Mirabile's comments to a previous post.
[I]n my mind while the East and West quibble about whose position holds the most water we, in the CEC, are under no obligation to settle the argument. When East and West [cannot] come to an understanding as to the nature of the Petrine office, who am I to settle the question? Until then I am Catholic/Orthodox “by participation in the catholic economy”. Until Rome and the East settle the issue of authority we are free, imho [in my humble opinion], to be an autocephalous church working towards intercommunion and evidencing deference to the Petrine office and the fullest participation possible in the catholic economy.
1. Why does it matter what East or West do? I think what matters is what is dictated by the ICCEC’s standard of orthodoxy...not what anyone else does—East, West, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, whatever. Imagine a Protestant settling the issues of apostolic succession and the Eucharist by saying, “In my mind, while all the various Christian denominations of the world quibble about whose position holds the most water I am under no obligation to settle the argument. When the rest of the world's Christians cannot come to an understanding as to the nature of apostolic succession and the Eucharist, who am I to settle the question? Until they settle those issues, I am free to be undecided about them.” How is the issue surrounding the papacy any different than that of apostolic succession or the Eucharist? The ICCEC’s claims to “stand squarely on the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence.” If that’s your standard of orthodoxy—the standard of orthodoxy which compels your beliefs concerning apostolic succession and the Eucharist—shouldn’t that, and not East or West or anybody else, compel your beliefs concerning the papacy as well?
2. On what basis, either in reason or revelation, do you preclude (i) the possibility that either East or West is correct about the papacy, and (ii) the ability to know which side is correct? How does the mere fact that the papacy is a matter of dispute render you neither responsible nor able to know the truth about it?
To all such arguments against religious truth, it is sufficient to reply, that no one who does not seek the truth with all his heart and strength, can tell what is of importance and what is not; that to attempt carelessly to decide on points of faith or morals is a matter of serious presumption... “Seek, and ye shall find;” this is the Divine rule, “If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God” (Prov. ii. 3-5).
—John Henry Cardinal Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, VIII, 13.
3. If, as you say, the fact of the division between East and West frees the ICCEC to be an autocephalous church, then it frees anyone to form an autocephalous church who is able procure apostolic succession for himself. So, let me understand...because there is one division, all manner of division is now permitted? Logically, this is a non-sequitur. It’s as if immigrants came to the United States during the Civil War and, seeing the division between North and South, declared themselves, by virtue of the original division, free to form additional and separate governing bodies within the borders of the U.S. Secondly, I cannot reconcile this with Scripture.
Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one... The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
—Jesus Christ (Jn 17:11b, 22-23)
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
—1 Cor 1:10
How does one division free us to ignore these and other Scriptures forbidding division? If we are to follow the dictates of Scripture (and Tradition), I think, when presented with a division, our course of action should be to join one of the already existing divisions and work for unity (and renewal), rather than create more divisions.
4. East and West disagree as to the nature of authority within the Church. That's obvious. However, East and West are in agreement as to the nature of the Church herself: she is permanently and indivisibly one. Both say that when there is a division, what you have leftover is not two churches, but the one Church and a schism. That’s why the Orthodox Churches, just as much as the Catholic Church, claim that the one Church subsists within them and that all who are not in full communion with them (such as the ICCEC) are in schism from the one Church. Now, how does the disagreement between East and West as to the nature of authority within the Church free you to disagree with both of them and to believe in a completely different kind of Church altogether?
And on aside, can the ICCEC responsibly claim fidelity to “the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence” without dealing with the fact that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches’ view of the nature of the Church is irreconcilable with its own?
posted by Keith @ 7:00 PM
47 comments
47 Comments:
Fish,
I agree with the gist of your argument here. The issue is simply this- how does a communion that is a mere 14 years old claim a place in the Church that has indivisbly existed from the beginning? It seems to me the critical argument is to see that the ecclesiology of the CEC and that of the Fathers are directly opposed to one another. There is no possible reconciliation between the two.
The Fathers assert faith in one indivisible Church, but the CEC holds to the modern Protestant notion of one invisible church existing in various visible communions. This is completely foreign to the thinking of the Fathers.
Regardless of what we think about Rome or the East, etc., the plain fact is that there is no logical way to hold to the Fathers as teachers and examples and hold to the present ecclesiological outlook of the CEC. Therefore, we are compelled to enter into this foray and do the best we can. This is why I find this blog to be of the utmost value- and I hope we all heartily believe the same.
Patrick....
I agree with the gist of your argument here. The issue is simply this- how does a communion that is a mere 14 years old claim a place in the Church that has indivisibly existed from the beginning? It seems to me the critical argument is to see that the ecclesiology of the CEC and that of the Fathers are directly opposed to one another. There is no possible reconciliation between the two.
I agree with you here. Yet, curiously, the ICCEC--or at least some of its members--declare themselves in harmony with the "pre-schism undivided catholic Church". But, as you point out, this is an idea that is utterly irreconcilable with the ecclesiology of the Fathers. A fourteen year old communion could claim a place in the Church that has indivisibly existed from the beginning if it was sent from that Church with a mission to propagate, not itself, but the Church from which it proceeds; all the while remaining in full communion with that Church. However, if that were the case, it wouldn't be a separate communion at all. This, by the way, is the purpose of apostolic succession; it's not a free pass to start your own church.
The Fathers assert faith in one indivisible Church, but the CEC holds to the modern Protestant notion of one invisible church existing in various visible communions. This is completely foreign to the thinking of the Fathers.
The ICCEC is definitely influenced by Luther's novel idea of an invisible Church (composed of the aggregate number of believers in all the different communions), but the ICCEC's insistence on apostolic succession is an aspect of the ancient/Catholic/Orthodox affirmation of the Church as being visible/institutional as well as spiritual/mystical. I suppose that the ICCEC would say that all who hold valid apostolic succession are in full communion with the one, holy, catholic, apostolic...and visible...Church. If that is what they hold, it is incongruous with the Fathers.
Regardless of what we think about Rome or the East, etc., the plain fact is that there is no logical way to hold to the Fathers as teachers and examples and hold to the present ecclesiological outlook of the CEC.
Indeed. This post was trying to get at a fundamental presumption I find in the ICCEC (and one which Matt reiterates) which says that somehow the schism between East and West equals a church composed of several, separate, autonomous autocephalous churches. It's a huge non-sequitur; yet, I find that it is a deeply embedded in the thinking of the ICCEC. What I don't understand is why the ICCEC ignores the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches' claim to be the one, true, and indivisible church. I guess the ICCEC must do so in order to maintain its ecclesiology and its claims in general.
1. Why does it matter what East or West do? ........The ICCEC’s claims to “stand squarely on the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence.” If that’s your standard of orthodoxy—the standard of orthodoxy which compels your beliefs concerning apostolic succession and the Eucharist—shouldn’t that, and not East or West or anybody else, compel your beliefs concerning the papacy as well?
Matt-First of all it absolutely matters what East and West to. As a new communion we could, at best, merely choose sides in a dispute. Since mommy and daddy can't come to an agreement how can the children reconcile the marriage. But even the children are members of the household. And to the second point, it is not what the East or West do that compels our beliefs about the papacy. We have simply, as a communion, not come to a conclusion yet. How silly to expect that we should come to a conclusion so quickly under the circumstances I just mentioned.
2. On what basis, either in reason or revelation, do you preclude (i) the possibility that either East or West is correct about the papacy, and (ii) the ability to know which side is correct? How does the mere fact that the papacy is a matter of dispute render you neither responsible nor able to know the truth about it?
Matt-On the basis of reason and revelation both, I have concluded that neither is right and neither is wrong. Rather, both churches are functioning sub-par. The East suffers from not having a true Primus inter pares (though the ecumenical patriarch is said to be such). At the same time the Roman church, has acted unilaterally and needs true ecumenical counciliar govnt. Such is the case with a body which is divided in itself, it exists sub-par on both parts. And, by the way, by declaring the unity of the one body of the East and West while divided you affirm rather that you are also in a divided church, not in a truly Catholic church. For if it were truly catholic and truly one it would not be thus divided.
To all such arguments against religious truth, it is sufficient to reply, that no one who does not seek the truth with all his heart and strength, can tell what is of importance and what is not; that to attempt carelessly to decide on points of faith or morals is a matter of serious presumption... “Seek, and ye shall find;” this is the Divine rule, “If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God” (Prov. ii. 3-5).
—John Henry Cardinal Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, VIII, 13.
Matt-So by quoting this you seem to suggest that there is a careless attempt to decide points of the truth? It would be careless to make rash decisions as to what exactly we do believe, in unity as a body, on the issues at hand. And you would have us rush in? Who then is being careless?
3. If, as you say, the fact of the division between East and West frees the ICCEC to be an autocephalous church, then it frees anyone to form an autocephalous church who is able procure apostolic succession for himself. So, let me understand...because there is one division, all manner of division is now permitted? Logically, this is a non-sequitur. It’s as if immigrants came to the United States during the Civil War and, seeing the division between North and South, declared themselves, by virtue of the original division, free to form additional and separate governing bodies within the borders of the U.S. Secondly, I cannot reconcile this with Scripture.
Matt-Sadly reality does not always line up neatly with our dogmas. The fact is IT IS SO. And as such division follows division. This does not meant that division is *permitted*, just that it happens. Now that it exists we must deal with it as it is, not as we wish it were. And your simile of the Civil War and Immigrants is a poor example. There is not "one country" except by economy, and this, as I said earlier is the premise under which we participate in the orthodox and catholic faith.
Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one... The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
—Jesus Christ (Jn 17:11b, 22-23)
Matt-You just affirmed that your house is divided -East and West. And the Pope affirms this. First put your own house in order, then worry about someone elses. We have begun the journey towards unity and have made the journey from far off and are being *brought near*. You are impatient in the sweep of history.
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
—1 Cor 1:10
Matt-And there are no dissentions in Rome? Puhleese. There is no dissention between East and West? Ain't this the pot calling the kettle black? The Roman church is not the shinning citadel you think it is.
How does one division free us to ignore these and other Scriptures forbidding division? If we are to follow the dictates of Scripture (and Tradition), I think, when presented with a division, our course of action should be to join one of the already existing divisions and work for unity (and renewal), rather than create more divisions.
Matt-We didn't set out to "create" the division. Like the gentiles we are being brought near. It took time in the first century, it will take time now.
4. East and West disagree as to the nature of authority within the Church. That's obvious. However, East and West are in agreement as to the nature of the Church herself: she is permanently and indivisibly one. Both say that when there is a division, what you have leftover is not two churches, but the one Church and a schism. That’s why the Orthodox Churches, just as much as the Catholic Church, claim that the one Church subsists within them and that all who are not in full communion with them (such as the ICCEC) are in schism from the one Church. Now, how does the disagreement between East and West as to the nature of authority within the Church free you to disagree with both of them and to believe in a completely different kind of Church altogether?
Matt-If they are one church it is by reason of oeconomia - economy, and because both churches affirm that the true church is a spiritual organism. As we participate in the same economy and are by nature born of the same Spirit (for we have all been baptized into the trinity and have, further more received that baptism by which we cry "abba Father') the church can be said to also subsist in us as well yet in schism as the East is from the West. I do not understand how you arrive at the conclusion that we believe in an entirely different church altogether. We do not. We share virtually the same theology, we share the same hierarchy of offices, ascribe to the same creeds, practice historic liturgies, believe the same sacraments and as you do, quote the fathers, accept the scriptures, and even decry much of the results of the Reformation- as you do. In the end we are closer to you than you make us out to be and there are only a few issues that are, as yet unresolved. And rest assured, we are working on those things.
And on aside, can the ICCEC responsibly claim fidelity to “the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence” without dealing with the fact that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches’ view of the nature of the Church is irreconcilable with its own?
Matt-Well, that’s just the problem, we do not, as yet find it totally irreconcilable. What is irreconcilable is to maintain division. And it is not our intention to do that. We may just be on a different time frame than suits you.
Fish said,"The ICCEC is definitely influenced by Luther's novel idea of an invisible Church (composed of the aggregate number of believers in all the different communions), but the ICCEC's insistence on apostolic succession is an aspect of the ancient/Catholic/Orthodox affirmation of the Church as being visible/institutional as well as spiritual/mystical. I suppose that the ICCEC would say that all who hold valid apostolic succession are in full communion with the one, holy, catholic, apostolic...and visible...Church. If that is what they hold, it is incongruous with the Fathers."
No, we would not say that all who hold valid apostolic succession are in full communion with the one holy Catholic and apostolic church. You are making sweeping and inaccurate statements about the CEC. You are making leaps in your logic and infering things we do not teach. And we do not say we are in "full communion" with the One, Holy apostolic church. Full communion and agreement are two different things. Full communion occurs through diologue. And we initiated that with Rome. As of yet, we must wait. Both ourselves and the TEC have had dialogue towards full communion and both, to date, have been put on hold.
Fish say's, "Indeed. This post was trying to get at a fundamental presumption I find in the ICCEC (and one which Matt reiterates) which says that somehow the schism between East and West equals a church composed of several, separate, autonomous autocephalous churches. It's a huge non-sequitur; yet, I find that it is a deeply embedded in the thinking of the ICCEC. What I don't understand is why the ICCEC ignores the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches' claim to be the one, true, and indivisible church. I guess the ICCEC must do so in order to maintain its ecclesiology and its claims in general."
No, you made a jump in your reasoning. I never said that the schism equals a church composed of several spearate churches. the non-sequitor is of your own imagination. Furthermore we do not ignore the claims of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. That is also of your own fabrication.
I have to raise some objection to some of Fr. Matt's comments here with regard to the relationship between the CEC and Rome.
1. The CEC is no longer in dialogue with Rome. When the dialogue WAS going on, it was unofficial -- not an "official dialogue".
2. Even while the dialogue WAS going on, that dialogue was NOT supported by many in the CEC -- including some who wear purple. In fact, one of the reasons I was, um, "encouraged" to leave the CEC was because of the bitter anti-Roman hatred by my former bishop. Comments like "I'm gonna drive all the closet papists out of my diocese" and "If you are a closet Catholic, I'm going to find you, root you out, and kick you out." He also looked me square in the eye and told me that no one -- NO ONE -- in the House of Bishops was interested in such dialogue (a statement which I knew was untrue -- he knew was untrue -- AND he knew that I knew was untrue).
3. The circumstances between the CEC's relationship with Rome and the TAC's relationship with Rome are entirely different -- so different that they should not even be considered together. The TAC is earnestly desiring communion with Rome and is working actively in that direction -- to the extent that the TAC bishops have indicated willingness to lay down their episcopal authority if such an action would foster unity. Yes, they are right now on "hold" -- but with real prospects for an eventual relationship. The TAC is also a TRUE world-wide communion with some 10 million members. The CEC on the other hand -- even before the current crisis -- was nowhere near unified on the issue of discussion with Rome -- much less an intercommunion relationship. Furthermore, the size of the CEC is a very tiny fraction of the size of the TAC -- and is NOT unified in matters of doctrine (much less discipline or praxis).
Fr. Matt Mirabile wrote:
No, we would not say that all who hold valid apostolic succession are in full communion with the one holy Catholic and apostolic church. You are making sweeping and inaccurate statements about the CEC. You are making leaps in your logic and infering things we do not teach.
1. Read, again, what I wrote: “I suppose that the ICCEC would say that all who hold valid apostolic succession are in full communion with the one, holy, catholic, apostolic...and visible...Church. If that is what they hold, it is incongruous with the Fathers.” Webster’s defines suppose as “to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal”; and Webster’s defines if as “1 a : in the event that b : allowing that c : on the assumption that d : on condition that.” Where, in this, are the “sweeping and inaccurate statements”?
Fr. Matt Mirablile wrote:
And we do not say we are in "full communion" with the One, Holy apostolic church. Full communion and agreement are two different things. Full communion occurs through diologue. And we initiated that with Rome. As of yet, we must wait. Both ourselves and the TEC have had dialogue towards full communion and both, to date, have been put on hold.
Am I to understand you to say that the ICCEC does not believe that it is in full communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Apostle and Nicene Creeds? What, then, does the ICCEC regard as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?
Matt Mirabile wrote:
No, you made a jump in your reasoning. I never said that the schism equals a church composed of several spearate churches. the non-sequitor is of your own imagination. Furthermore we do not ignore the claims of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. That is also of your own fabrication
In the text I quoted in the post, “Matt” declared that the division between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches over authority frees the ICCEC to be an autocephalous church. How is this not thinking that, somehow, the schism between East and West equals a church composed of several, separate, autonomous autocephalous churches? And, being that this ecclesiology is completely incongruous with the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches’ claims to each be the one, true, and indivisible church...how is this not ignoring the claims of those churches in this regard?
David Zampino said...
I have to raise some objection to some of Fr. Matt's comments here with regard to the relationship between the CEC and Rome.
1. The CEC is no longer in dialogue with Rome. When the dialogue WAS going on, it was unofficial -- not an "official dialogue".
Matt replies - David, Both your father and Abp Sly were delegated the task of Ecumenical dialogue, were they not? In good conscience they began dialogue with Rome. I mention this merely to point out the fact that the CEC is not as arrogant as Fish would like to make us out to be. And while I would concede that the Bishops are not in unity over the issue of Rome, it does evidence a recognition of our responsibility to be reconcilled to our Roman and Easter brothers, though right now this is a low priority.
2. Even while the dialogue WAS going on, that dialogue was NOT supported by many in the CEC -- including some who wear purple. In fact, one of the reasons I was, um, "encouraged" to leave the CEC was because of the bitter anti-Roman hatred by my former bishop. Comments like "I'm gonna drive all the closet papists out of my diocese" and "If you are a closet Catholic, I'm going to find you, root you out, and kick you out." He also looked me square in the eye and told me that no one -- NO ONE -- in the House of Bishops was interested in such dialogue (a statement which I knew was untrue -- he knew was untrue -- AND he knew that I knew was untrue).
Ofcourse it was not supported by many bishops. Their spiritual formation is different than those who have gone through St Michaels seminary (who seem to be far more orthodox in their thinking) and those who are younger and came to the CEC under a different set of propositins. this stuff takes time. I do not expect our present leadership to be able fully to "enter into" that promised land en masse.
3. The circumstances between the CEC's relationship with Rome and the TAC's relationship with Rome are entirely different
Matt says- yes they are very different. And the TAC has had time to formulate a unified mind on the matters. the CEC has not. yet the CEC, by this dialogue evidences recognition of the historic apostolic churches and our responsibility to move towards communion. Obviously we still have a maturing process to go through. Unfortunately every time a more "catholic minded" individual leaves that leaves us all the weaker for it, and I hope that in the future those who see the need for our intercommunion with the historic churches, so that we can claim apostolicity with integrity, will not leave but will stay and fight the fight - though it takes a generation or more. You see, i am on the same trajectory,, just at a slower pace. I do not want to move faster than by brothers can bear because I love them and do not want to leave them behind.
Fish day's,
"1. Read, again, what I wrote: “I *suppose* that the ICCEC would say that all who hold valid apostolic succession are in full communion with the one, holy, catholic, apostolic...and visible...Church. If that is what they hold, it is incongruous with the Fathers.” Webster’s defines suppose as “to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal”; and Webster’s defines if as “1 a : in the event that b : allowing that c : on the assumption that d : on condition that.” Where, in this, are the “sweeping and inaccurate statements”?"
Fr Matt - OK, then why *suppose* this at all? This supposition neither helps the converstion nor your intended purpose of the blog. Such a presumptive supposition only serves to be divisive. Are you actually interested in dialogue? or are you interested in defending your intellect and your suppositions?
"Fr. Matt Mirablile wrote:
And we do not say we are in "full communion" with the One, Holy apostolic church. Full communion and agreement are two different things. Full communion occurs through diologue. And we initiated that with Rome. As of yet, we must wait. Both ourselves and the TEC have had dialogue towards full communion and both, to date, have been put on hold"
Am I to understand you to say that the ICCEC does not believe that it is in full communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Apostle and Nicene Creeds? What, then, does the ICCEC regard as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?"
Matt - This is the very nature and heart of the discussion isn't it? Clearly (from the manifest tone of your posts)you believe it to subsist only in the Roman church. As I said before we participate by economy. I guess the concepts of *participation* and *economy* are unfamiliar to you.
"Matt Mirabile wrote:
No, you made a jump in your reasoning. I never said that the schism equals a church composed of several spearate churches. the non-sequitor is of your own imagination. Furthermore we do not ignore the claims of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. That is also of your own fabrication
In the text I quoted in the post, “Matt” declared that the division between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches over authority frees the ICCEC to be an autocephalous church. How is this not thinking that, somehow, the schism between East and West equals a church composed of several, separate, autonomous autocephalous churches? And, being that this ecclesiology is completely incongruous with the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches’ claims to each be the one, true, and indivisible church...how is this not ignoring the claims of those churches in this regard?"
Matt - Perhaps in your mind my comments suggest that the schism equals a church composed of several autonomous churches. It does not to me. I am sorry if you are uncomfortable with that and that I do not accept your reasoning. There is one church, it subsists in *The Church* according to its unbroken apostolic line, it's economy, tradtion and the Spirit. East and West are one church in schism (as you have said), we are also both a result of that schism and on a path of restoration from schism (as are the East and West). Perhaps this seems like a paradox to you and you are uncomfortable with it. As of yet I can still live in this paradox. That may change, but your arguements cartainly have not swayed me yet. I am sorry that our journey is not occurring on your terms.
Fr. Matt Mirabile...
the CEC is not as arrogant as Fish would like to make us out to be
I wouldn’t like to make the ICCEC out to be arrogant...maybe a bit presumptuous perhaps. What rubs me is the animosity towards those who respectfully seek to see the ICCEC’s claims substantiated. That borders on arrogance, but I don’t think that everyone in the ICCEC behaves this way. Fr. Ken Tanner, at least, recognizes the value of this blog and seems to see that it is incumbent upon the ICCEC to bring forth substantive answers to the questions raised here.
I hope that in the future those who see the need for our intercommunion with the historic churches, so that we can claim apostolicity with integrity, will not leave but will stay and fight the fight
By-and-large people become Catholic or Orthodox because they come to see that one or the other of them is true, i.e. that either the Catholic Church’s or the Orthodox churches’ claim that the one, indivisible Church subsists within them is true. Accordingly, people who believe this cannot stay in the ICCEC or anywhere outside the Catholic Church or the Orthodox churches, whichever of them they come to see as the true church. As Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote, “It follows that if one believes what the Catholic church says of itself to be true, then he is obliged to enter into and remain in communion with the Catholic Church.” Same is true with the Orthodox churches.
Fascinating dialogue. Well, you can't accuse the CEC of not having some worthy debators. It really does have the cream of the crop of ex-Protestants.
I am a CECer about to leave this communion. I am choosing the RCC because it's more familiar to me, and the papal office makes sense.
It is difficult, though, because there are things about the RCC that I love and things about the Orthodox that I love.
I hope they hurry up and come together so I won't feel like I'm missing out.
Fish says, "I wouldn’t like to make the ICCEC out to be arrogant...maybe a bit presumptuous perhaps. What rubs me is the animosity towards those who respectfully seek to see the ICCEC’s claims substantiated. That borders on arrogance, but I don’t think that everyone in the ICCEC behaves this way. Fr. Ken Tanner, at least, recognizes the value of this blog and seems to see that it is incumbent upon the ICCEC to bring forth substantive answers to the questions raised here."
You can tell when a man is defending his own pride when he has to fire a cheap shot -"But I don't think everyone in the ICCEC behaves this way". Fish, I am just meeting you on your own terms. Can't take it? And BTW Fr ken Tanner is a much nicer guy than I am.
And I am curious. What qualifies you do examine the ICCEC anyway? Where you are priest in the ICCEC? Because you make so many mischaracterizations about what we believe or say that I have to wonder what your qualifications are? If you were never in this communion I can udnerstand this, if you were,what is the purpose of this blog? I dont think you are interested in examining the CEC. I think you are interested in deconstructing it and leading people to Rome. And that offends me and It is to me the height of arrogance. That would be like me starting a blog called "Examining the Wesleyan church" and then going on to critique it and pose my convictions about the ICCEC and how much better they are. And I would make sure I quote a lot of other authorities too, because, just by quoting them it lends to the authority with which i make my totally out of place pronouncements concerning another communion of which I am not a member.
Ofcourse, i do not begrudge you this endeavor, it has some merrit. For me, this is a fun excersize! But for some dispondent men who do not know how to think about all this (our current state of affairs) I fear that your kindness towards us actually may do more harm than good. Ofcourse to you, you are fishing men from a misguided communion. But it is never in good form for one Kung Fu school student to go to another school to steal way students. Eventually he may find that his King Fu is not as good as he thought and he will shame both himself and his school.
:)
Speaking personally, it has been refreshing and encouraging for me to read Fr. Matt's words.
I know this will sound a bit uncharitable, yet I must say it:
Why all this "sturm and drang" over the CEC?
My experience of the CEC (4 years) was a pleasant one. The people were pleasant, the leadership likewise amiable and sincere.
I agree that it has its difficulties. The CEC is gravely divided over what it believes, and has no catechism. It is so young, unformed, etc. Theological education seems to be very lacking. CEC seminaries are not exactly institutions of higher learning. None have any accreditation of any kind.
Nevertheless, I find it difficult to stay focused on CEC issues due to one reason--it is so tiny!!
My "cathedral" parish never had more than 50 on a sunday, and the turnover of newcomers was quite high. This "cathedral" has been renting a meeting room for 8 years now. The church has no money, and no possibility to ever buy a building, or even to rent a larger facility.
Only the bishop is being paid.
I was told that the CEC was a "fast-growing" communion. I found the reality to be tiny churches with tiny congregations.
The latest episcopal resignations, and departures of many churches from 3 CEC diocesan folds will shrink the CEC even further.
I dont argue that "size" matters exactly...but why all the fuss over something so tiny. I can't imagine any of the Eastern Patriarchs or anyone in the Vatican, or even the US Conf of Catholic Bishops have any idea of its existence. Or, if they were to learn of it, might shrug and smile politely, but then move along to prepare the sermon for daily mass.
Anything that has the potential to be great must also have small beginning :)
Fr. Stephen
Fish,
Please pardon me for any beligernace. It is intended in the spirit of friendly combat. You want the CEC to justify it's claims. I am trying to do that. At the same time, you have got to be prepared for someone to challenge your assumptions and dissargee with your conclusions.
As of yet you have not once answered the substance of my defence of the ICCEC regarding the issues of *pariticipation* in the catholic and orthodox *economy*. I have mentioned this several times and the issue you keep bringing up is how the East and West play (or don't play) into the claims of the ICCEC (granted ICCEC guys brought it up first). But what of issues of *economy*? Take the Taize community for example. Started by a Protestant man outside of apostolic orders it draws many Catholics and Brother Roger became friends with Pope JP2. The community particpates in a catholic economy and because of this it has enjoyed the favor of the Roman Church and the Pope(from what I have read). The community began in the 1950's and it took some thirty years before it showed up on the radar of the Roman church and gained the favor of the Pope. I share this to show that participation in a catholic economy precedes licit communion in the Catholic Church (I am not suggesting that they are in licit communion with Rome- a detail you would harp on while ignoring the substance of the arguement).
St. Vincent, as I mentioned earlier in another post also points to this economy. That which is catholic is that which is beleived always, everywhere and by all. He goes on to mention others who were part of the one church in apostolic succession who fell away from this economy despite their apostolicity (Tertulian for example). Why is this? it is because that which is Catholic is first that which participates in the economy of the Church of Christ. And that economy originates in the Kingdom. Indeed, before Iraneus spoke of "the Catholic Church" and "apostolic succession" the Catholic church existed in economy in the apostolic witness of the New Testament. In the same way the economy of salvation through faith predated the New Testament (as Paul explains that Abraham was justified through faith apart from the law). We see here that the economy of salvation was in place long before the means of the New Covenenant. In the same way, the economy of the church Catholic predated the "Catholic" church. Were those in the New Testament not Catholics because they were not in communion with Rome? Was Paul not a catholic because he challenged the actions of Peter? Was the church not Catholic because the council of Jerusalem was a coucil of equals and James, not Peter appears to make the final judgement on the issue of the gentiles (Acts 15:13,19)? Without a finely detialed and precise understanding of the modern Papacy, were they some how outside of the Church? If you and I believe the same things as touching all the major doctrines of the church and we both come from apostolicly valid (albeit in my case illicit) communions do we not both participate, albeit imperfectly, in the same economy? And who participates in this divine economy perfectly? Because this economy does not originate with men, but with God. And those things which were said to safeguard the unity of the Catholic are said because of men's weaknesses, not because they are the commands of God. the Tradition is made for man, not man for the tradition. The tradition is in place to guard the economy, it does not, in itself possess the economy. the letter of tradition is dead without the Spirit that brings to life the economy of God in the souls of men. A church may possess all the pedigrees of the great tradition and still leave the souls for whom it exists empty of the life of God (as is often the case). why? Because the souls of the men who are in it have not themselves entered into the spiritual economy. They are participating in the tradition, but not the Kingdom. While there have been men who have left the ICCEC for Rome there have been others who have left Rome and the East for our church. Why? Because they recognized something of this economy and understood it to be orthodox and catholic.
Yours in the spirit of freindly combat
Fr Matt
One more thing. The quote for your blog in the top banner is, “Once we have found the truth with our minds, then all the passionate resolution of which we are capable should flow into action. But first we must consider the credentials of Christ and of the many churches claiming to be his. We must consider them with cold logic and the careful weighing of all the evidence.”
—Oliver Barres, One Shepherd, One Flock
This according to Gregroy Palamas is the error of the Western church. That she should think that the discovery of truth, which is ineffable, occurrs first with the mind and rational inquiry. Especially "cold logic". This is the captivity of the West to Aritotelian thinking. For one cannot know the truth without having revelation, which is the result of the Nous (powers of the intellect, eye of the soul) having been purified through ascecis and arriving at theosis. A revelation of the truth comes as a result of prayerful watching and contemplation of God, not cold logic. So this premise, the very one you base your entire endeavor on is, for the most part, considered by the Eastern Orthodox as a heresy.
Masterfully written, Father Matt, not only your comment about logic and rational enquiry not necessarily being paramount (that a great point, and thanks for bringing up St. Gregory Palamas!)--but particularly your good understanding of the gracious "ekonomia" of salvation. Too often we make salvation sound like something we earn by being "right" and "correct", not as a lavish gift from the Father.
BTW, did you notice that, at the funeral of John Paul the Great, Brother Roger of Taize was given Holy Communion by then-Cardinal Ratzinger? Even though Brother Roger was never officially a Roman Catholic (God bless his soul). That is a pretty impressive witness to me--Cardinal Ratzinger understood that the ties of grace we share in Christ Jesus are, at times, more important than the institutional structures which divide us. He could have passed Brother Roger over and just given him a blessing--but he didn't. He gave him the precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. I believe he was right to do so.
Glory be to Christ our God.
Fr. Matt Mirabile...
Please pardon me for any beligernace. It is intended in the spirit of friendly combat. You want the CEC to justify it's claims. I am trying to do that. At the same time, you have got to be prepared for someone to challenge your assumptions and dissargee with your conclusions.
Feel the irony. I put it back to you: are you prepared for someone (this blog, Fish CampMore, etc.) to challenge your assumptions and disagree with your conclusions? Can you oblige the challenge without attacking the person behind it?
I am absolutely prepared to have my assumptions challenged and my conclusions disagreed with. In fact, I welcomed it in the inaugural post of this blog. I accept your apology for the belligerence. If it was, as you say, intended in a spirit of friendly combat, it was lost on me. Some of your recent comments hardly fall within the delineations of "friendly combat". Moreover, they detract from the more proper task, which you properly identify, of challenging my assumptions and disagreeing with my conclusions. However, if it is in the spirit of friendly combat with which you are now willing to proceed, I am quite willing to oblige: that's the whole point of this blog. Can I answer every objection raised by you and everyone else defending the ICCEC's claims? I wish I could, but I suffer from both the lack of time and talent. However, I do find myself more inclined to dialogue with those willing to engage in honorable, gentlemanly discourse. The quotes on the bottom of the sidebar are, for me, reminders of the spirit which I would like to see animate this discourse, especially that side for which I am responsible.
Greetings, Seraph,
Just a quick note: it is true that at the funeral of John Paul the Great, Brother Roger of Taize received communion. Both the Vatican and Taize have related that this was accidental; than an old man got into the wrong line, and that under the circumstances, both the Cardinal and Brother Roger proceeded decently and in order, rather than to make a scene. However, even at Taize, there is no Eucharistic intercommunion between the Protestant members and the Catholic members.
I was sorry when I learned this, because I, too thought that this appeared to be a great moment of witness.
Oh well, we continue praying.
Blessings,
Wow...
I can't believe how easily we can sway from the topic! Fr. M with all due respect, your comments and attitude in delivery could (or perhaps should) lend you some time in confession.... :-)
Yes, I am a common spectator-- not near as educated in the faith as some of those who comment, but I would like to remind you all that we do share one common purpose and bond-- that of Jesus Christ-- the church is one. (His)
If we choose to go back to the intent of this blog-- or at least what I perceive as the intent-- we would not be so petty in our arguments. Fr. M is clearly bitter. Perhaps a bit defensive? I am a former CEC member and I know that in my experience God CLEARLY used the CEC as a stepping stone in my decision to come home to Rome! Surely they can exist side by side. What I find interesting is that The Catholic Church (what I have come to believe as THE Church) has been around for thousands of years-- with sinners within it-- but it has withstood. The ICCEC, tiny (as described by a commenter) and young in years, is finding tribulation now-- honestly, what church doesn't have trials...it's how they handle things within that will determine their fate.
I find Fish's comments quite invigorating. I see no reason why HE should be personally attacked--this detracts from the purpose of the arguments. I think this blog is needed for some in and out of the CEC for perhaps a clearer understanding of things.
The Lord deals with everyone uniquely-- we all have our own salvation to work out with fear and trembling! The spirit in which these last few comments have been written, in my opinion, are bearing no fruit-- at least none good. I know that the church is full of sinners, but we should at least be charitable with one another! :-) I hope to especially see charity exemplified from PRIESTS!!!!!!!!
re: Just a quick note: it is true that at the funeral of John Paul the Great, Brother Roger of Taize received communion. Both the Vatican and Taize have related that this was accidental"
Accidental to us, but perhaps not to God. Maybe it was an arranged accident. :)
Blessings
Well, if I can recall correctly, I once had a Methodist pastor whom I knew very well coming for an RC Mass with his Catholic wife. He recieved Holy Communion from the priest who knew him as well (the pastor was the Secretary - General for the Council of Churches)without much fuss, signed himself, kneeled and prayed. I was very curious because the RCC always teaches that only Catholics can recieve communion. I spoke to the pastor, and he said "because of the vows that I took with my wife, I not only raised my child Catholic, but also chose to believe in the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ".
For my parish priest, who can be considered a hardliner (very rare among Jesuits these days), he realised who he gave Holy Communion to. For the SJ priest, he knew that the communicant recieved Communion worthily (1 Cor 11:26 - 29). I think Cardinal Ratzinger knew very well that Brother Roger Schultz was coming to recieve Holy Communion. Know that even Cardinal Ratzinger was a hardliner. In fact, for Brother Roger's funeral, Cardinal Walter Kasper celebrated a funeral Mass.
In all this, the lesson is very simple - "Jesus said to her, "Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; 9 and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him. God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth."" John 4:21 - 25
This is the reason why I would never go back to Rome. Been there. Done that. It just means going back to useless arguments and dead religion. Who cares about this Apostolic Succession stuff? How many people came to Jesus Christ because of Apostolic Succession. This talk just keeps people away from the real task: Bringing Souls to Jesus Christ. I see some of these Roman folks are just like the pharasees during Jesus' day.
Meanwhile the gentiles are coming into the Kingdom of God.
To the previous poster,
May God forgive you . . .
Regarding ‘soon to be’, I pray, Blessed Brother Roger of Taize...
First off, where did Rome call his reception of the Eucharist accidental? Did they apologize for his fully Roman Catholic burial as well?
I was blessed to visit Taize and meet Brother Roger shortly before his death. Brother Roger was indeed Roman Catholic and had pledged full submission to Rome although for some of the brothers in his community there were some who remained Protestant.
Today, Catholics are in the majority at Taize and many Protestants feel that Roger Schutz betrayed his origins. It is true that Brother Roger was on excellent terms with the Catholic authorities. He and his second in command, the theologian Brother Max Thurian (a Roman Catholic convert as well), were invited to attend the Second Vatican Council as observers, by John XXIII, who spoke fondly of the little spring of Taizé.
It is important to look from another perspective, set aside observing from activities concerning Brother Roger, observe the activities of Popes while they were at Taize.
Brother Roger defended clerical celibacy and accepted the universal ministry of the Papacy in the perspective of Christian unity. Although intercommunion is forbidden at Taizé only Catholic priests are permitted to celebrate the Eucharist. Observers pointed out that Brother Roger received Communion at the hands of Cardinal Ratzinger at John Paul II's funeral. Let me assure you, Brother Roger was and is Roman Catholic.
Cardinal Kasper presided at Brother Roger's funeral, following the Catholic rite, and was assisted by only four monks from the Taizé community- you guessed it, Roman Catholics. Allow me to add, Brother Alois, a German Roman Catholic, was chosen by Brother Roger as his successor some time ago.
Some of the confusion may be explained in that the charter of the Taize community called for a “looking at the things that unite” rather than divide- a sort of secrecy pervades as to which clergy are which but it doesn’t take long for the observer to note the successors to the Apostles. This has worked for Taize and therefore, it may remain a model for all of Christendom. However, Brother Roger believed in unity at the extent of the truth not the expense of it! Even while still Protestant, he was more faithful to the Magesterium than many Roman Catholics in America.
Lamb of God, in Your mercy, hear our prayer!
Let us examine the facts:
1. He had a Trinitarian infant baptism making him a part of the Roman Catholic Church but separated.
2. It is true that Brother Roger was on excellent terms with the Catholic authorities. He and his second in command, the theologian Brother Max Thurian (a Roman Catholic convert as well), were invited to attend the Second Vatican Council as observers, by John XXIII, who spoke fondly of the little spring of Taizé.
3. In 1974, Brother Roger proclaimed that the Pope was the "Universal Pastor" of all Christians.
4. At the funeral of Pope John Paul II, Brother Roger was administered the Eucharist from the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
5. Brother Roger Schutz was against intercommunion and shared the Roman Catholic teachings about the Eucharist (Transubstantiation).
6. He had a Roman Catholic devotion to the Holy Mother.
7. He lived and preached Roman Catholic dogmas, doctrines and disciplines.
8. He sent a letter to the Pope the week prior to his death pledging solidarity to the Vatican.
9. He was given a Roman Catholic funeral. Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Vatican's Council for the Unity of Christians, concelebrated the Mass with four other priests of Taizé.
10. In 1998, Brother Roger designated Brother Alois Löser, a 51-year-old German Roman Catholic who had originally come to Taizé as a youth and became one of the brothers, as his successor.
Does anyone still doubt his Roman Catholicity? After reading his profile, I’d doubt my very own first. The Burden of Proof is on the one who claims he was Protestant.
I don't see what the situation with Bro. Roger has to do with the CEC. The issue is this: does Rome recognize the orders of the ICCEC? We all know they recognize them as valid, but not licit.
The CEC does not even have uniform doctrines and positions on a lot of things. If there is no agreement within, there is no possibility of catholic concord beyond that.
Again, the CEC finds itself opposed to the position of the Fathers in regard to the doctrine of the Church. The CEC is claiming to base its teachings and practices on those of the Fathers, yet here is a blatant contradiction. These are the issues needing to be addressed first before there can be any progress.
It seems to me that the Donatist controversy presents a good model to work with. There you had those who did not believe the Church was spiritual enough and in need of reform. The Fathers (particularly Augustine) were not at all confused about the situation. Those who separated, even for seemingly good reasons, were labeled as heretics. This position is still held by the Church today, presumably even by the CEC.
Thus, for all its rhetoric, the CEC has no good reason to perpetuate division by maintaining its right to exist as a separate communion from any other catholic body.
Well said, Patrick! However many CEC folks will not go that route and I realize it has been God's grace that allowed me to see my error so that I can start to overcome my Protestant rebellion. I pray, "Lead kindly, Light!" It took many years for some to become Protestant Christians so we may expect the same timeframe for them to shed their Protestantism and become submitted. I agree with you about Brother Roger but some Protestants have used him as proof that non-canonical Catholics should be able to receive communion. However Brother Roger is a confirmed Roman Catholic so that argument is dust in the wind.
I don't see how any of this is relevant to our Christian living at all.
A few things begin to occur to me.
First, it would seem that if the (outwardly-)broken Body of Christ is ever to regain the full manifestation of Oneness, it must do so either (A) on the RC basis of the papacy as supreme rule-giver, or (B) along the Orthodox understanding of koinonia which is reflected in all churches which gather around the Eucharist under the Bishop, within the life of the Trinity--this faith expressed in the Seven Councils and other synods (Palamite, etc.).
It seems to me that basically, the CEC has (like the PNCC) chosen alternative (B), since -- at least in the understanding of CEC priests and bishops I have spoken to -- the CEC wishes to maintain the faith of the undivided ancient Church.
There is good reasoning for that, I think, since the faith was given "once for all" according to Jude and the other apostles. The Faith should not be expanded dogmatically for purposes of mere devotion, e.g., the Assumption of Our Lady, but should only be defined by a Council if the Faith is at stake of being grossly misunderstood. And the Faith surely deals with no less than our RELATIONSHIP with God the Father, Son, Spirit.
I mention the RC dogma about the Assumption because I have never been able to grasp why this fact of Our Lady's life should be so central to Christian experience and our relationship with the Holy Trinity, that it needed to be defined on pain of anathema and excommunication. Mind you, I accept the historical event in Our Lady's life, just don't think it is relevant to lift it as dogma.
Anyway, *if* the Church is ever to be reunited in outward manifestation on the basis of the Faith Once Given and understood in the First Millennium, it seems that would entail the West to reconsider the Papal dogmas and the Filioque, if nothing else, and perhaps re-define some other matters like the Immaculate Conception as dealing with "conception in holiness", not "conceived without stain of sin", since the latter phrase has no meaning in Orthodox theology.
But if such a massive reconsideration were to happen in the West, it would *precisely* be in such movements as the Brazilian National Catholic Church, which I understand has dropped the Filioque and has dropped the Papal dogmas, thereby bringing it more in line with the Orthodox faith.
Well, if such a movement is required, perhaps the CEC is not on the wrong path after all, at least in the long-term.
The practical problems with the CEC would, then be in (1) strictly upholding the teaching of the Faith of the First Millennium, not allowing in any Calvinism or denial of the Real Presence, etc. Also, (2), the CEC should really, for the long-term, be seeking recognition and enfolding by both Orthodox and Catholic Communions, attempting to act as a living catalyst for reunion.
Naturally, this would take some real humility on the part of CEC bishops, as well as strength of heart. Some CEC priests already seek to embody this vision, by mentioning in their Eucharistic Prayer, not only the Patriarch of the CEC and their local bishop, but also Benedict Bishop of Rome, Bartholemew Patriarch of the East, and Luis Bishop of Brazil. That is at least a first step towards real embodiment of the vision, taking it seriously that Christ means us to be One. If the Schism began once the mutual memorials of Rome and Constantinople were striken out of the diptychs, perhaps it could be healed by starting to reverse that process, in true and humble charity.
This may be a pipe-dream, of course. Or then again, it could be a mustard seed.... Christ is Lord, and He alone knows.
Thank you, my friend, for your kind and reasoned words.
I must confess that I disagree with your historical analysis -- but can't find fault with your heart.
May God richly bless you,
And thank you, dear David Zampino, for your kind response.
I guess the basic question to my mind is, since there is The Faith Once Given that was shared in common in the beginning, has that Faith been *added* to (as the Orthodox would claim), or has it been *subtracted* from (as the Catholic Church would claim)?
If the latter is true, then certainly everyone should seek reunion with Rome and humbly submit to the pope, on his terms. That, of course, is the stand of Fish Campmore and this blog. And of course, of David Zampino!
If the former is true, then certainly everyone should seek reunion with the whole Church, more on Orthodox terms, working to reverse or redefine some perhaps questionable developments that have occurred in the West.
But in either case, it is certainly clear to me that the CEC is forbidden, long-term, from being a mere "denomination". Its ultimate goal must be to put itself out of business, by seeking the union of the whole.
That said, unless there is some burning issue that crops up or a response that demands my reply, I will probably take a break from writing in this blog. I have so many other things to do in my life! May I say that I deeply respect *everyone* who has taken the time to write so thoughtfully on these difficult issues.
Again, may Jesus our dear Savior and God be lifted up, now and always. And I pray for great and profound blessings upon the people, priests and bishops of the CEC, and upon Benedict pope of Rome, and upon Bartholemew patriarch of Constantinople, and upon "all who call upon the name of Jesus", as St. Paul says.
In Christian love,
Seraph
I want to thank Seraph for two very compelling posts. The Christian spirit and humility of them is greatly appreciated. I think he has raised a great point (among others) in the area of dogmatics. Let's deal with the assumption of our Lady as the example since this is what he mentioned. I agree that it appears unreasonable to demand adherence to such a doctrine as a matter of dogmatic theology. I wonder if Fish or Fr. David can comment on this for us.
I hope to comment at length later, but I wanted to catch Seraph before he took a hiatus from this blog to say that I think he framed the ICCEC's situation very well and very accurately. I discern a very thoughtful person behind his two recent posts (and, of course, the others as well. I regret calling his words "vitriolic"--even if indirectly). I would like to comment also on the Asuumption per Patrick's suggestion. However, I have no time and no inspiration. The blogging bug is not biting. Also...I am having scruples about having a blog aimed specifically at another communion. While I don't think it's necessarily wrong (any group that makes public claims that have bearing on the salvation of mens' eternal souls are subject to public scrutiny), I think it does lack charity. So, I'm thinking about canning this blog altogether...maybe resurrecting it later as a Catholic apologetic aimed at "Independent Catholicism" in general. I think that would be well within the bounds of charity. In the meantime, I hope to tie up some loose ends here in the comment section before I defunct the blog. Shoot me an email if you want me to give you a heads up when the new blog is up and running.
Also...Seraph...it occurs to me that Newman's An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is very apropos to your last post. It is a classic nonetheless and should be read regardless :-) Seriously, though, please read it if you find yourself one day having to decide between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches.
Sincerely,
Fish,
While I appreciate your humility and sensitivity, I do believe your blog is serving a great need in the ICCEC. It is forcing us to think about ecclesiology. In the present state of crisis I really believe that is the foremost question facing us. Whatever future we may have will be determined largely by our answer to that question. Your blog allows a variety of perspectives to be discussed. For whatever it's worth, I hope you'll decide to keep it going.
I was wrong in regards to Brother Roger's conversion. It was purely accidental on my part. It appears the event was accidental as well, just as Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted such. The one who "missed the mark" perhaps was Brother Roger for receiving it when he stood against it's reception but we all must realize this: When I met Brother Roger he was very old and dependent on the brothers to move him about. The ones who wheeled him forward should have known. Brother Roger had one foot in glory already when we met. This is likely to have contributed to the dilemma. I will backtrack and admit my error but note that I erred in something charitable. God does have His way for "accidents" to happen just as a "coincidence" is sometimes God acting anonymously.
Earlier I asked, "First off, where did Rome call his reception of the Eucharist accidental?" Rome answered it for me:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504883.htm
I will now take a closer look at how Rome views CANCB/ ICCEC and SSPX. St. Augustine once answered on why he would backtrack on earlier arguments and retract earlier writings, "I write because I learn, but I also learn because I write". This is one good value of blogging. Additionally we should never back down from admitting we are wrong at times.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'll try this again.
For Patrick and anyone else interested in matters of ecclesiology as they pertain to the ICCEC, there are feasts over at the Pontificator's blog. See, for instance, this page.
You know Fish, I think that with the ICCEC issue "resolved", perhaps we can now move to other "Catholic" denominations per se? Have a look at http://www.ind-movement.org. You'd be surprised to note the number of those denominations. Cheers bub.
On 7/9/06, collin_nunis collin_nunis@catholic.org wrote:
You know Fish, I think that with the ICCEC issue "resolved", perhaps we can now move to other "Catholic" denominations per se? Have a look at http://www.ind-movement.org. You'd be surprised to note the number of those denominations. Cheers bub.
Thanks for the suggestion Collin. Actually, I've been to that site recently. As far as examining other so-called "Independent Catholic" denominations, I would like to look at the fundamental ecclesiological premises underlying the whole lot of them: that is, basically, the branch theory of the Church elaborated during the Oxford Movement which proposes that there is a valid Via Media between Protestantism and Catholicism, and which asserts that valid apostolic succession by itself and apart from collegiality makes one a bona fide branch of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. This is the "issue" which I (and the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox churches) have with the ICCEC and all those in the so-called independent catholic movement. It's been at the heart of all my posts; and it has not, in my mind, been resolved. I'm curious as to why you say that it has. Cheers to you as well!
Ken Follis,
I really appreciated your information on Brother Roger. It helps to underline the concepts of "participation" and "economy". It is my hope that the ICCEC will eventually(it took 50 years at Taize) exhibit this sort of solidarity with the Orthodox and Roman churches.
Fr. Matt,
It was my understanding that the ICCEC originally did desire this solidarity. Unfortunately, until ICCEC's own issues are addressed and fixed, such solidarity remains unlikely.
Fish, your arguments were pretty comprehensive and detailed. You went that extra mile so yes, I believe you have pretty much addressed the issue of the ICCEC. Well done, good and faithful servant.
For those of us still in the CEC, trying to dig through all the "stuff"...trying to make decisions as to "what now"???--thank you, Fish!
If you choose to end the blog, it is understandable. However, I would hope that it could continue for maybe just a little longer?
Some of us came from Protestant backgrounds before entering the CEC, and need the education!
To Fr Mirabelle,
Thank you sir, for your comments! However the ICCEC most likely will not be around in fifty years from now in order for us to measure how aligned they are to East or West. Besides I am fairly certain there will not even be East or West communions but only one to contend with then. However the ICCEC must contend with them today not then. I have heard much speculation of different individuals who became familiar with East or West and "almost converted" but didn't make the final step due to circumstantial obstacles rather than theological ones. Now Brother Roger has joined that particular group but he is in good company with Rich Mullins, C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. Wouldn't it be something if they are roommates in the paradisiacal dormitory at the University of Purgatory, assuming they aren’t already in the Master's chambers? Capon or Kreft should write a story on these three. With that said, the ICCEC is no longer close to being like these three men whom I have mentioned. Please do not misunderstand me, some are there but, as a communion, they are not. The ICCEC’s AD 1054 came in 1997 and they said we choose "rebellion" and truly became Protestant Catholic to their own demise. It had been better that they had never known the truth than to be presented with it and choose a water-downed substitute over the pure option of dissolving and/or assimilating with the East or West. I am no prophet, but predictive analysis leads me to suspect they will not survive one decade from that year. It was that year that the ICCEC founder preached a sermon denigrating Apostolic Succession. It was that year the purpose of the ICCEC was abandoned. Already the soldiers are falling into formation so that the bugler can play "Taps” and the commander can make the Last Roll Call. The ICCEC should look at the profile of a Brother Roger and, in the very least, model there communion after Taize or be holy and honest to cross the threshold and be a visible part of the OHCAC and its catholic crucible. The Church of the Reconciliation was very close to doing this under Brother Roger so I do not doubt that the little community won’t just drive to the nearby little village of Cluny and receive the spirit of the convent that was once there so many years ago. Of course, I am only speculating. We will see in fifty years.
Respectfully,
Ken Follis
you may not be a prophet...but i think you have the eyes of a prophet.
Post a Comment
<< Home