“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12.13)
Today falls as the Sunday within the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity. 45 years ago, the second Vatican Council had a particular concern for promoting Christian Unity and addressed the question in a special Decree on Ecumenism. The Council did not in any way contradict the traditional teaching of the Church: indeed it said that the fullness of unity subsists in the Catholic Church. In one place, the decree says:
“Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors - the bishops with Peter’s successor at their head - should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love. It is thus, under the action of the Holy Spirit, that Christ wills His people to increase, and He perfects His people's fellowship in unity: in their confessing the one faith, celebrating divine worship in common, and keeping the fraternal harmony of the family of God.” (n.2)Unfortunately, as the Council also observed, rifts arose in the Church from the beginning, and out of those rifts grew communities that are not blessed with the gift of the fullness of unity. Such would be the Nestorian and Monophysite Churches of the East in places such as Syria and Egypt, the schism by which the Orthodox Church broke away from Communion with Rome, and the Reformation which gave rise to the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches denying the priesthood, the sacrifice of the Mass, the invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, indulgences, and most importantly the authority of the Church’s magisterium.
In England we had our own particular tragedy with the reformation of Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I which gave rise to the Anglican Church. In the late sixties and early seventies, there was great optimism about the prospect of complete reunion with the Anglican Church. Sadly, events since then within the Anglican Communion, such as the ordination of women to the priesthood, have rendered that most unlikely – if indeed it was ever a real possibility.
Nevertheless, the work of ecumenism with the Anglican Church and other communities of the West continues in a spirit of mutual charity. The Church seeks to extend the hand of friendship to those belonging to the other Christian communities, to enter dialogue with the purpose of greater understanding, and to pray together where this is appropriate.
Locally, through “Churches Together in Sidcup”, there are many activities organised, and regular shared prayer so that we can co-operate with other good Christians where possible in giving witness to Christ. At a national level, I have been delighted to work together with other Christians, often evangelicals, who share our concern at legislation which seeks to limit the freedom of Christians to express their faith in public or in the workplace. Many also share our advocacy for the unborn, the elderly, the disabled and for the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
More recently, Pope Benedict has offered a concrete possibility for Anglicans wishing to come into full communion with the Catholic Church. He has issued a Constitution called Anglicanorum Coetibus which will enable them to be received as communities, with their own Bishop or senior priest in charge, and even using some of their own rites, provided, of course, that they are modified to reflect the fullness of Catholic faith. I have personally been in touch with some Anglicans who wish to make use of this generous provision and we may be sure that the Church will be enriched as a result.
In our prayers and work for Christian unity, we should not limit ourselves to the now traditional concern of unity with the Anglican and Protestant communities. Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict have worked very hard to improve relations with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Overcoming prejudice and ingrained anti-Roman attitudes can be a task requiring patience and perseverance but both Popes have made considerable headway and some of the smaller Eastern Churches have been brought into full communion. Pope John Paul II said that if the Orthodox Churches were once again to be in full communion with Rome, the Church could again “breathe with both lungs”. We should pray to the Holy Spirit, to St Andrew, St Basil, St John Chrysostom and the other great saints of the East for this intention.
Finally there are others whose unity with the Catholic Church is a concern of the Holy Father, most notably the traditionalist Society of St Pius X, founded by Archbishop Lefevbre in the midst of the aberrations that followed the second Vatican Council in the late sixties and early seventies. His consecration of four bishops without the permission of the Holy See was a schismatic act but the Holy See has tried very hard to overcome this division. Recently, the excommunications of the Bishops were lifted, an event unfortunately overshadowed by the disgraceful remarks of Bishop Williamson minimising the Nazi holocaust. His remarks have been repudiated by the Holy Father and by the Society of St Pius X but caused considerable damage to the cause of unity.
Currently there are earnest and sincere discussions taking place in Rome to overcome any theological differences and essentially to agree on interpreting the second Vatican Council in accord with the whole tradition of the Church, as indeed has been a major theme of Pope Benedict’s pontificate.
There is therefore much to pray for and to work for in terms of Christian Unity. In our own lives, the Holy Father’s approach can set an example. We should be prepared to give way in charity to others in matters that are merely custom or non-essential (such as, for example the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist, or the use of local liturgical rites) while firmly preserving the fullness of the Catholic faith entrusted by Christ to the apostles. And if our desire for unity is to be compelling in its effects, we must live that Catholic faith generously so that the attraction of the truth of Christ is shown in practice and itself invites others into communion with the one Church which Christ founded on the rock of Peter.
18 comments:
Great sermon - thank you.
Father may i compliment you on your sermon.Archbishop Lefevbre was associated with the rejection of ecumenism and opposition to the replacement of the Tridentine Mass.The Society of St Pius X is still the world's largest Traditionalist Roman Catholic Priestly society.He wanted to uphold traditions within the Church and keep it pure,ensuring the dissidents were kept out.The only mistake he made was ordaining 4 Bishops without Papal approval for which he got excommunicated.After what has happened to our church after Vatican 2,he has proved to be right.May Our Lord & Our Lady bless him.
Beautiful sermon! Perhaps the best way to counter [false] ecumenism is to promote [true] ecumenism.
Father
You seem to suggest that union with Orthodoxy is principally (if not solely) a question of "overcoming prejudice and ingrained anti-Roman attitudes". You can't really believe that, can you? Isn't this kind of playing-down of difficulties in order to raise false expectations precisely the "wrong" sort of ecumenism?
Not too long ago you had post here on the "heresies" of St Gregory Palamas; these are Orthodox dogma. Similarly, the magisterial definitions of Vatican I (together with much else) are regarded by the Orthodox as gravely heretical; koinonia is therefore impossible in the absence repudiation and repentence.
How is it that a Church claiming Catholicity can be lacking one of its lungs? I've never understood that.
Dear Father Finigan
Thank you for this timely sermon which sends such a positive message to our poor 999 World, that in 2010 will see a General Election in the UK, and a Football World Cup in South Africa too.
On my return from a 'moving statue' tour of Ireland in 1985, when I visited Ballinaspittle and the Mount Mellory Cistercian Monastery, I dismissed the notion that any motion was involved, and abandoned hope of finding any proof of miraculous movements.
As a contract surveyor I was due to start work for the London Borough of Southwark's Direct Works Organisation at Pelican House. The night before I commenced the Southwark contract I had a 'big dream' featuring the Virgin Mary. The archetypal feminine may have remained completely motionless in the outside world but inside my psyche she was 100% active.
When I attended Pelican House the next day I was appointed as surveyor for the UNITY PROJECT in Peckham High Street. This 'black' community project was staffed on site entirely with white contract labour and it was known in-house as 'COON DISCO'. I was therefore forced to take drastic remedial action and so I involved my old Addey & Stanhope School friend the Nigerian born film producer Faith Isiakpere. Faith had worked with UB40 and was at the time employed by Channel 4. A TV film called 'The Crossing' drew inspiration from the real life drama that we were confronted with.
Unfortunately Mandela's 'Children of Africa' film producer, the same Faith Isiakpere, refused to become involved in my Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) JUSTICE NOT VENGEANCE FOCUS case in 1991 after I was imprisoned following direct action taken after I had discovered that the BNP leadership were being allowed to use the Old Addeyans F.C / Densitron International plc development space for their 'Planning for Real' meetings.
Following the intervention of John Austin MP, and Lucy Faulkner the English FA’s Ethics & Sports Equity Manager, my individual (FARE) JUSTICE NOT VENGEANCE FOCUS 1991-2010 case has reached a critical legal juncture following Judicial Review at the Royal Courts of Justice involving myself, the IPCC, the MPA and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
It is proposed that a FOOTBALL AGAINST RACISM IN EUROPE 1991-2010 evidence file be given to Jack Straw via David Hanson MP, Minister of State at the Home Office.
The dream that I had in 1985, which has since found it's way into verse, will I hope provide us all with some true UNITY IN THE COMMUNITY development inspiration.
A SINNER'S DREAM OF MARY
When I was out a wandering upon the hills so green.
I spied myself a vision of a bright celestial Queen.
(Refrain)
A rosary,a rosary with rainbows all around.
A blood red cross she gave to me upon that hallowed ground.
She wore a crown of silver and in her arms she bore.
A child who was the future of mans peace and not of war.
(Refrain)
A rosary,a rosary with rainbows all around.
A blood red cross she gave to me upon that hallowed ground.
Corpus Christi woman was the lady that I saw.
Build inside she said to me mans inner self once more.
(Refrain)
A rosary,a rosary with rainbows all around.
A blood red cross she gave to me upon that hallowed ground.
At the next General Election former Met Police Inspector Michael Barnbrook, the malevolent neo-Nazi BNP Police Spokesman, will be standing as a candidate for MP in Father Finigan's Our Lady of the Rosary Parish, Blackfen, which is in the late Sir Edward Heath's Old Bexley & Sidcup constituency. Nick Griffin MEP, the BNP's leader will be standing as a candidate for MP in the Barking & Dagenham constituency here in London at the next General Election.
Our Lady of the Rosary pray for us in BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP's EU/GLA/LDA/ODA NEO-NAZI DEVELOPMENT TIMES Amen
Yours sincerely
Roy Hobson aka Our Lady's Vesper ON-LINE +
His consecration of four bishops without the permission of the Holy See was a schismatic act but the Holy See has tried very hard to overcome this division.
I really must disagree with this assertion, even though I held it myself once. The Archbishop's consecration of the four bishops cannot be held as schismatic as he had absolutely no intention of separating himself from the authority of the Rome. Yes, it was an act of disobedience, but an act he thought necessary to continue the society for the preservation of tradition. This is why he called it "operation survival", especially after the talks in 1988 - particularly on choosing a new bishop where the Vatican rejected his names time after time - broke down. Subjectively, he truly believed he had no choice but to consecrate bishops without papal permission.
He made it very clear that these new bishops had no territorial jurisdiction and operated as auxiliaries. They pledged their loyalty to the Church, but to be used for good, not to be destroyed or muted by the modernist authorities.
A state of necessity is mentioned in the code of canon law, as described in a number of places (e.g. http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm).
David - "schismatic act" was Pope John Paul's expression. In view of the strenuous efforts of Cardinal Ratzinger to achieve a compromise, I think that it is difficult to say that a condition of necessity existed. Many priests of the SSPX left the society at that time precisely because of this defiance.
Moretben - just who, exactly, has the authority to define that the teaching of Gregory Palamas is "dogma"?
A good path for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue would be to recognise that the 20th century anti-Roman consensus among Orthodox theologians is just that, a product of the 20th century. As Jugie demonstrates, there is an earlier strand of Orthodox theology much more favourable to sensible dialogue with the Holy See.
How can the Church be lacking one of its lungs and still be Catholic? Obviously we consider the marks of the Church to be fully realised only in a transcendent manner. there are lots of Muslims, Hindus, atheists etc. in the world who are not part of the Church and yet it is Catholic.
An important question would be whether the Orthodox Church shows the mark of Catholicity when the Russians and others have established themselves autonomously apart from Constantinople - and all of the Orthodox Churches are out of communion with the one Church to which St Irenaeus says that all should gather.
David - "schismatic act" was Pope John Paul's expression. In view of the strenuous efforts of Cardinal Ratzinger to achieve a compromise, I think that it is difficult to say that a condition of necessity existed. Many priests of the SSPX left the society at that time precisely because of this defiance.
Yes, this is the official line from the Vatican. However, not that long ago, the traditional liturgy was only available via Indult (Quattuor abhinc annos 1984), was celebrated as a privilege (the previous line of the Ecclesia Dei commission) and the general impression was that it was abrogated (Cardinal Medina Estevez changed his mind on that one). Clearly the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI changed all of this. However, the SSPX contested that the old rite was never abrogated all along.
Perhaps events of June 1988 will be viewed differently given time. If Canon Law states that subjective necessity absolves one of penalty, and we can certainly believe the Archbishop did what he did out of sincerity, then the penalties given out to him were particularly severe. Moreover the label of a "schismatic act" does not sit well with the reality of the situation. Yes, Cardinal Ratzinger may have tried to reach a compromise, but the Vatican's problem all along is a lack of understanding of the SSPX's position - they do not wish to compromise with modernism, as they view many of the policies and influences of the post-Vatican II Church. Some priests and seminarians left, but this always happens at difficult times when decisions are viewed differently by different parties.
I would wholeheartedly recommend the biography of the Archbishop written by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. Long, but very readable - you can borrow my copy if you like! It writes about Lefebvre the man, rather than simply about the controversies he found himself in. His time in Africa in the decades before the Council are particularly enlightening.
David - I have read the first two volumes of Michael Davies' biography and found them fascinating. But I would like to read the one by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. (But don't lend me your copy! Borrowed books are another burden in my life and I would sooner spend my money and get a copy I can hold onto and mark with a clean conscience.)
As you know, I pray earnestly that the discussions with the SSPX will go well and that a full reconciliation will be achieved. I chuckle to think of the effect they would have on Deanery Meetings :-)
These things are decided synodically Father, as they always were.
Jugie, naturally, prefers Orthodox of the "western captivity" to those who, delivered from Turkokratia and westernising Tsars, set out to recover the authentic Patristic tradition. Naturally, there has been an over-reaction in some quarters; but no-one repines for the dead hand of western scholaticism. As to this hostility being a phenomenon of the 20th Century - didn't the Patriarchs reply to the Pope in the 19th? High-level ecclesiastical bombast is not to my taste, but you wouldn't mistake it for eirenicism.
You seem to be under the impression (to my considerable surprise) that the Orthodox think of Constantinople as a kind of "mirror" of Rome, claiming a similar sort of over-arching authority to which all other bishops and Metropolitans are required to submit. This is simply not the case, as I'm sure you're aware. As in the time of Ss. Irenaeus, Ignatius, Cyprian, all bishops are essentially equal. Precedence "of honour" does not equate to anything analogous to "universal jurisdiction". The Catholic Church is present in its fullness wherever a bishop presides over his flock in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
The Church with which Irenaeus and Ignatius required all the Orthodox to agree (being at the administrative centre of the Oecumene, enjoying the lustre of a Petrine AND Pauline foundation and a hitherto unblemished record of Orthodoxy) ceased subsequently to to be Orthodox. That profound mutual recognition in Christ which is the reality of communion was therefore lost, as the Roman Primacy mutated into a different animal entirely. That's all.
Well no, of course, Constantinople does not claim universal jurisdiction in the developed Western sense but it certainly did claim something like it, especially concerning the right to consecrate the muron.
It is probably true that few in the East have much respect for scholasticism. I would see this as a weakness in Orthodox theology rather than a strength but I expect we are not going to agree on such matters.
In the meantime, I do sincerely hope that the dialogue pursued by the Holy Father and the Patriarch of Constantinople is fruitful and positive.
Father, thank you for your gracious response. I watch with great interest, but without expectations!
Father i would like to ask a few questions about Archbishop Lefevbre and SSPX.
(a) If only the Pope can validate a Bishop,then why are these 'invalid' appointed Bishops by Archbishop Lefevbre still viewed as Bishops by the Pope & the Vatican,if they were invalidly appointed?
(b) Could the Pope & The Vatican have revoked the validity of these Bishops because it was done without Papal approval?
(c) As a great Priest yourself whose traditional & orthodox,what did you think of Archbishop Lefevbre and SSPX?
Gerald - there is a distinction between validity and lawfulness. It is unlawful to consecrate a Bishop without the approval of the Holy See but the consecration can be valid.
It is not possible to revoke the validity of a Bishop's ordination because the sacrament of orders confers a permanent sacramental character. Occasionally, the Holy See will dismiss a Bishop from the clerical state but even then, he is still a Bishop. The Holy See did not move in this way with the SSPX Bishops because there has always been a desire for reconciliation.
Your third question requires a long answer really, but basically I think that Archbishop Lefevbre was wrong to consecrate the Bishops. Nevertheless, the SSPX has done much good in preserving the tradition of the Church and I pray and hope for their full reconciliation with Rome.
Father many thanks for your gracious response.
You said " there is a distinction between validity and lawfulness. It is unlawful to consecrate a Bishop without the approval of the Holy See but the consecration can be valid".
My final question to you Father is this.
If Canon law states that only the Holy See can appoint and consecrate a Bishop,then why in this instance is the consecration valid, if it was unlawful in the first place?
My reason for asking this, is because i read about Archbishop Lefevbre ordaning the Bishops when it first happened.Am fascinated to know why the Church still view these Bishops as legitimate,even though the Church knows they were consecrated against its own law.
Many thanks Father and your sermon was gerat.
Gerald - it is rather similar if a person baptises a baby at home without permission. This is allowed if the baby is in danger of death and a priest cannot be found, but otherwise it is not lawful. But the Baptism is valid.
Fundamentally, the reason is that the sacraments work "ex opere operato", that is, by the power of the completed sacramental rite. If the rite is carried out properly (at the least the essential part, the "matter and form") and by someone who is capable of ministering the sacrament (in the case of ordination, a Bishop), then Christ works by means of the sacramental rite even though it may be celebrated unlawfully.
I would recommend reading the section on the sacraments in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. this gives a good and balanced introduction to the sacraments which you may find helpful.
Father, you stated:
"We should be prepared to give way in charity to others in matters that are merely custom or non-essential (such as, for example the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist..."
I always believed the use of unleavened bread to not be merely custom but essential and theologically based. Could you explain this further? Thank you.
And thank you for maintaining this wonderful blog.
Post a Comment