I'm sure the recent comments of Pope B-16 have been thoroughly blogged about. My friend Eric said, "Well, he is Roman Catholic, what else is he going to say?" His comments are both insightful (and probably a little defensive of RC), but I have to say that I'm partial to the comments of N. T. Wright. Read his response here and tell me what you think.
From one second class Christian citizen to others, I'm going with Colossians 3 on this one. Either Vatican II was an honest attempt at ecumenism or it was a deceit. RCs can't have their Eucharist and eat it too!
What do you all think?
6 comments:
The tricky thing about the great ecumenical movement (which probably gained its greatest popularity a few decades ago) was that it tended to water-down the particularities of faith and doctrine on both sides of the fence. Maybe this was Pope B.'s concern for RC. I don't know.
Wright's article was good, but I'm still not sure about Eucharistic fellowship between Protestants and RCs. It seems if this is done, then we've already started watering-down the particularlities between us. What do you think?
yes, but there is already the acceptance of the sacrament of baptism and (pun intended) if there is already an acceptance of Trinitarian baptism, then it's already watered down.
I know that Eucharist is particularly powerful medicine, and I know that right administration is a real issue (it is for me too), but the ecumenism doesn't depend on absolutes of doctrine. It doesn't for Trinitarian baptism. My goodness, there are some who baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but do not even have any understanding of sacrament. We as Nazarenes barely have that (we don't even demand it for receipt of Eucharist). Yet RCs accept our baptism.
Eucharistic fellowship follows (logically and theologically) if baptism fellowship precedes.
I am watching "Big Brother" and well---hmmmm..........................
yep--I am sooooooo shallow
sorry,
sisie
RCs accept our baptism, I think, only if we then participate and are confirmed in an RC church. From what I gathered of the pope's remarks (and the larger RC tradition), I don't think they even understand Protestant denominations as part of the Church. Because of this and the fact that sacraments can only be instituted by the Church, I think it might be too much to ask them for Eucharistic fellowship. If they did practice this, I don't see how they could maintain their own particularity.
Right, and I would say their rejection of our Eucharistic fellowship would, by a matter of theological congruity, deny their own status as the Church. This isn't an issue of transubstantiation because the Orthodox church doesn't believe in transubstantiation, yet their Eucharistic fellowship is accepted. By rejecting the fellowship with Protestants, they are rejecting the RC as THE Church (by sheer definition of Communion).
Of course this is not unusual for the RC as they were the ones who walked away from the East in 1054, sooooo. . .
For B16 to be such a so-called strong ally of JPII, it seems a bit disingenuous, especially in the spirit of Vatican II.
I already blogged on this too, but I find it appalling. Too bad that Hans Kung didn't emerge from Vatican II as the one to wear the sandals of the fisherman. Things might be different!
;-)
Post a Comment