I think the internet age has created this hyperpapalism and ultramontanism view of the Pope and that the ability for the world to see every word and deed of the pope is actually a bad thing. The role of the pope ought be 1) be the bishop of Rome and 2) settle matters that arise and needs a final authoritative decision (which should be rare in an ideal world). That's it. People need to focus way more on their OWN bishop and not on the pope.
The practical status of local bishops in the Internet era is utterly bizarre. My bishop lives 60 miles away. I see him maybe once every two years, unless I make the effort to travel to the Cathedral. I hear from him maybe four times a year via the audio pastoral letters. Who cares? Pope Francis is a two hour flight away and he fills my consciousness.
It was not my local bishop who was on the front page of The Times of London on Good Friday 2018: "Pope Francis 'abolishes Hell'". Bring on the luckless Cardinal Nichols from Westminster to spin the story on the lunchtime BBC Radio 4 news. My bishop may be a useful area manager for the purpose of selling off masses of church property as congregations collapse.
I am reminded of that wacky upside down pyramid building in Bratislava. Somehow bishops need to be visible on the ground as pastors.
I understand the lack of magisterial weight. It doesn’t mean the Orthodox can’t have reactions ranging from “excellent suggestions, let’s pursue them” to “go jump in the Tiber.” Personally, I imagine the Greeks and their friends will be closer to the former and the Russians and their friends closer to the latter. But we have to start somewhere.
There was that huge letter from two Greek archbishops back in 2014 urging Pope Francis to repent of his many errors and convert to Orthodoxy.....so maybe if he converts, we can get some real reunion going.
Thanks for linking that letter! I hope it doesn’t express the sentiments of a majority of the Greek Church. A schism of a thousand years probably won’t be mended in 60. We clearly have a long way to go.
I’m sorry, are non-Catholic Christians asking us to “reinterpret” our position on something because they, the non-Catholics, don’t like it? I don’t mean to be uncharitable to our separated brothers and sisters. I’m also a bit alarmed at the idea that the Church would reconsider/ reformulate/ reinterpret/ re whatever any teachings, particularly those of a council just because someone outside the communion doesn’t like them.
I am reminded that Koch agreed to Sola gratia. The obvious conclusions drawn from that doctrine is either that God gives some people enough grace to get to heaven and others not, or that everyone goes to heaven.
I was taught a different reality. Without God we can't. Without us God won't. Or act as though everything depends on you and pray as though everything depends on God.
So at any rate I see this as another attempt to sell out the faith for the sake of unity.
2. London conversations in the 1930s. Absolutely fascinating story of a very obscure episode. This book was published in 2017, so the author can record later disappointments. Such as the 1992 Poorvo Common Statement setting the basis for intercommunion between the Anglicans and the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia and the Baltic, "some of which made no claim to apostolic succession". And the 1992 decision to ordain women "priests". Will the current women bishops be part of any reunified hierarchy?
3. ARCIC Agreed Statement on Authority in the 1970s. Er, yes, I am old enough to recall the high hopes of the time. And the cautionary articles by those who knew the massive obstacles. There are any number of other links and drafts out there.
4. Malines conversations from 2013 onwards. I have not read this SPCK book. But it suggests that the animosity aroused in some quarters by the 1920s Malines has died away. For a while, the phrase "No more Malines!" was heard in Anglican circles. Like other Ecumenical discussions, these new conversations tend to take place in agreeable locations with great food.
So will anything more come of this new yakfest? As the Chairman of a meeting declared after a horrendously lengthy and boring speech: "The subject is not exhausted. But we are".
One visibly unified Church would be wonderful. Our Lord prayed for that before he died. I assume that that is what "ut unum sint" refers to: it means "that they may be one" and the phrase occurs in the Vulgate for John 17:21. In context, Our Lord prays "My prayer is not for [the apostles] alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
Of course it also needs to be grounded in truth rather than lies or good feelings. But Church unity is part of Christ's dying wishes.
Well, I can’t be critical of the document if they keep it unavailable. (Hoping I don’t need to be critical.) They should have tried that approach with Fiducia supplicans. Cute emoji here.
Who care about all this? What purpose would be served by compromising everyone's beliefs in order to have confusing agreements and organizational structures that displease everyone as little as possible?
Thanks, Luke, for breaking all this down for us. A very helpful service for those who can't dedicate the time to delving into such a heavy document.
I understand some of the shade being thrown at documents like this and the concepts expressed in it, but it's honestly not that controversial today to read Vatican I as shaped by the historical circumstances in which it was written. It was a very defensive council, and its documents were promulgated as the Italian Republicans were practically at the gates. You don't get the most balanced and nuanced consideration of the weighty issues involved with primacy with a few hundred bishops (some of whom left, BTW, before voting on the documents) and an air of emergency. Vatican I wasn't even formally concluded until Vatican II did so prior to it's own formal beginning. Hmm.
All this is to say: There was always room for reconsideration, not of the fundamentals but in how they are presented and in what framework they are embedded in. Vatican II did not contradict Vatican I, but it did frame it within a more robust ecclesiology that was, to be frank, MUCH better informed by the Church's own study of its complex history and the input of thousands of bishops from all over the world.
Does the Holy Spirit need more bishops and more knowledge of history to make decisions? Of course not. But the ordinary operation of the Holy Spirit is through / with the concrete personhood of Christians, and concrete persons can pose limitations to said operation depending on a variety of circumstances. Were the Fathers of Vatican I closed to inspiration such that they could not reach truth? No, but the character of the truth expressed could have suffered from their own attitudes and limitations of knowledge and understanding. That's why there is always the possibility of "development" of doctrine in the Church: we really do grow in understanding as a Body, and that must be expressed to every generation, and maybe even re-expressed at times.
I've come around to view the works of John O'Malley more positively over the years on the subjects of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II, easily found through web search. He's not without a bias, but he is a solid historian and not a bad place to start.
I think the internet age has created this hyperpapalism and ultramontanism view of the Pope and that the ability for the world to see every word and deed of the pope is actually a bad thing. The role of the pope ought be 1) be the bishop of Rome and 2) settle matters that arise and needs a final authoritative decision (which should be rare in an ideal world). That's it. People need to focus way more on their OWN bishop and not on the pope.
The practical status of local bishops in the Internet era is utterly bizarre. My bishop lives 60 miles away. I see him maybe once every two years, unless I make the effort to travel to the Cathedral. I hear from him maybe four times a year via the audio pastoral letters. Who cares? Pope Francis is a two hour flight away and he fills my consciousness.
It was not my local bishop who was on the front page of The Times of London on Good Friday 2018: "Pope Francis 'abolishes Hell'". Bring on the luckless Cardinal Nichols from Westminster to spin the story on the lunchtime BBC Radio 4 news. My bishop may be a useful area manager for the purpose of selling off masses of church property as congregations collapse.
I am reminded of that wacky upside down pyramid building in Bratislava. Somehow bishops need to be visible on the ground as pastors.
I think we really began to think and talk seriously about hyperpapalism and ultramontanism shortly after 2013.
The internet just helped this along.
Curious if this will move the needle with the Orthodox.
No, it's only a study text not a magisterial document.
I understand the lack of magisterial weight. It doesn’t mean the Orthodox can’t have reactions ranging from “excellent suggestions, let’s pursue them” to “go jump in the Tiber.” Personally, I imagine the Greeks and their friends will be closer to the former and the Russians and their friends closer to the latter. But we have to start somewhere.
There was that huge letter from two Greek archbishops back in 2014 urging Pope Francis to repent of his many errors and convert to Orthodoxy.....so maybe if he converts, we can get some real reunion going.
https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2014/04/15/news/two-orthodox-bishops-accuse-the-pope-of-heresy-1.35766631
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf
Thanks for linking that letter! I hope it doesn’t express the sentiments of a majority of the Greek Church. A schism of a thousand years probably won’t be mended in 60. We clearly have a long way to go.
I’m sorry, are non-Catholic Christians asking us to “reinterpret” our position on something because they, the non-Catholics, don’t like it? I don’t mean to be uncharitable to our separated brothers and sisters. I’m also a bit alarmed at the idea that the Church would reconsider/ reformulate/ reinterpret/ re whatever any teachings, particularly those of a council just because someone outside the communion doesn’t like them.
It would be impossible anyway. We can't rewrite history and we can't deny dogmatic statements of ecumenical councils.
Was Vatican I an ecumenical council?
Were all the ones held in the West after the Second Council of Nicaea "ecumenical?"
They seem to be General Councils of the Western Church.
Remember, those of us in the West live in a culture of relativism. Rewriting history and dogma are de rigeur.
I am reminded that Koch agreed to Sola gratia. The obvious conclusions drawn from that doctrine is either that God gives some people enough grace to get to heaven and others not, or that everyone goes to heaven.
I was taught a different reality. Without God we can't. Without us God won't. Or act as though everything depends on you and pray as though everything depends on God.
So at any rate I see this as another attempt to sell out the faith for the sake of unity.
From the British perspective, this looks like deja vue for the fourth (or fifth?) time round.
1. Malines conversations in the 1920s.
https://iarccum.org/org/?o=291
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malines_Conversations
2. London conversations in the 1930s. Absolutely fascinating story of a very obscure episode. This book was published in 2017, so the author can record later disappointments. Such as the 1992 Poorvo Common Statement setting the basis for intercommunion between the Anglicans and the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia and the Baltic, "some of which made no claim to apostolic succession". And the 1992 decision to ordain women "priests". Will the current women bishops be part of any reunified hierarchy?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reunion-Revisited-1930s-Ecumenism-Exposed/dp/085244916X
3. ARCIC Agreed Statement on Authority in the 1970s. Er, yes, I am old enough to recall the high hopes of the time. And the cautionary articles by those who knew the massive obstacles. There are any number of other links and drafts out there.
https://www.usccb.org/resources/agreed-statement-authority-church-issued-anglicanroman-catholic-commission
4. Malines conversations from 2013 onwards. I have not read this SPCK book. But it suggests that the animosity aroused in some quarters by the 1920s Malines has died away. For a while, the phrase "No more Malines!" was heard in Anglican circles. Like other Ecumenical discussions, these new conversations tend to take place in agreeable locations with great food.
https://iarccum.org/org/?o=70
https://spckpublishing.co.uk/malines-continuing-the-conversations-205
So will anything more come of this new yakfest? As the Chairman of a meeting declared after a horrendously lengthy and boring speech: "The subject is not exhausted. But we are".
I guess some want not only one world order, but also one church order.
Sounds like a disaster.
One visibly unified Church would be wonderful. Our Lord prayed for that before he died. I assume that that is what "ut unum sint" refers to: it means "that they may be one" and the phrase occurs in the Vulgate for John 17:21. In context, Our Lord prays "My prayer is not for [the apostles] alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
Of course it also needs to be grounded in truth rather than lies or good feelings. But Church unity is part of Christ's dying wishes.
Am I the only one who is having trouble downloading the complete text of the document?
I couldn't download either the English, French, or Italian PDFs (the three available). I wonder if it's a "protected" file that can't be downloaded.
Thanks for confirming. Somebody at vatican.va is gonna need to fix that.
I wouldn't hold your breath ;)
Well, I can’t be critical of the document if they keep it unavailable. (Hoping I don’t need to be critical.) They should have tried that approach with Fiducia supplicans. Cute emoji here.
It's perfectly easy to download by clicking on the links in this story. http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/news/2024/2024-06-13-il-vescovo-di-roma-nuovo-documento-dpuc.html
On my iPad, it could hardly have been easier.
I can download it on my iPhone, but not on my Chromebook, so perhaps it's only blocked on Chrome browsers.
Hmm. Is a puzzle. I downloaded it just now using Chrome on my iPad.
Thank you for the summary.
Who care about all this? What purpose would be served by compromising everyone's beliefs in order to have confusing agreements and organizational structures that displease everyone as little as possible?
The long and short of “ecumenicism” should be, “Submit to Rome”.
Thanks, Luke, for breaking all this down for us. A very helpful service for those who can't dedicate the time to delving into such a heavy document.
I understand some of the shade being thrown at documents like this and the concepts expressed in it, but it's honestly not that controversial today to read Vatican I as shaped by the historical circumstances in which it was written. It was a very defensive council, and its documents were promulgated as the Italian Republicans were practically at the gates. You don't get the most balanced and nuanced consideration of the weighty issues involved with primacy with a few hundred bishops (some of whom left, BTW, before voting on the documents) and an air of emergency. Vatican I wasn't even formally concluded until Vatican II did so prior to it's own formal beginning. Hmm.
All this is to say: There was always room for reconsideration, not of the fundamentals but in how they are presented and in what framework they are embedded in. Vatican II did not contradict Vatican I, but it did frame it within a more robust ecclesiology that was, to be frank, MUCH better informed by the Church's own study of its complex history and the input of thousands of bishops from all over the world.
Does the Holy Spirit need more bishops and more knowledge of history to make decisions? Of course not. But the ordinary operation of the Holy Spirit is through / with the concrete personhood of Christians, and concrete persons can pose limitations to said operation depending on a variety of circumstances. Were the Fathers of Vatican I closed to inspiration such that they could not reach truth? No, but the character of the truth expressed could have suffered from their own attitudes and limitations of knowledge and understanding. That's why there is always the possibility of "development" of doctrine in the Church: we really do grow in understanding as a Body, and that must be expressed to every generation, and maybe even re-expressed at times.
I've come around to view the works of John O'Malley more positively over the years on the subjects of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II, easily found through web search. He's not without a bias, but he is a solid historian and not a bad place to start.
I'll have to look into O'Malley work. Thanks for the source.