The oldest argument in Christianity is whether the pope is supreme over all other bishops. The ancient churches were unanimous in their refusal of papal supremacy. There can never be unification of churches as long as the Pope claims to be supreme over all others, claims soverign statehood for the vatican and continues to cling defiantly to the tattered rags of a long-gone empire.

Kendall Sims

Benedict XVI has been pursuing a policy of reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX for short. These are right-wing schismatics who broke from the Catholic Church in the 1970s under the late Cardinal Lefevbre. They didn't like Vatican II, specifically the turn away from Latin and towards ecumenism. With his recent endorsement of the Tridentine Mass and yesterday's step back toward "no salvation outside the church," Benedict's giving them part of what they want on doctrine, hoping a) they'll rejoin Rome without a total repudiation of Vatican II theology, and b) that the rest of the church won't notice or speak up. In effect, this is ecumenism with the right wing (the Orthodox are also being wooed) attempting to form an alliance against militant Islam. The SSPX and the Orthodox are much more in line with Benedict's views on aesthetics and morals than liberal Protestants. Keep in mind, this is a guy who thinks rock'n'roll is Satan's music.

Steve Schewe

A commenter at t19 ( http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/4298/#79151 )
quotes Crunchy Con,
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/07/benedict-on-untrue-churches.html,
What he [the Pope] is saying is that the fullness of truth exists only in the Catholic Church—that the rest of us have only part of the whole truth. I disagree, of course, but the Pope is right to say that. Secondly, he explains how for Catholics, the word “church” has a precise theological meaning. You can’t have a church, in a historical and theological sense, without a valid Eucharist, and you can’t have a valid Eucharist without a valid sacramental priesthood ... which you can’t have without unbroken apostolic succession.

It's interesting to me that our Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, does not say that the Anglican/Episcopal Church has the whole truth, and that, indeed, she takes a very Anglican kind of view - that "I am the way and the truth" need not mean non Christians do not have the truth. There are other possibilities of what God can do.

My pennorth.

None of what the Pope said precludes ecumenical dialogue at any level (though Rome's goal, honestly, is 'learn the truth and join us') or joint charitable work locally.

Of course the big sticking point regarding Anglicans is exactly apostolic succession: Rome's rejection of Anglican orders, or, 'Is Anglicanism a church like the Orthodox or only an "ecclesial community" (a polite term for 'non-church') like the Protestants?' Some say the introduction of Old Catholic succession into Anglicanism renders that negative ruling irrelevant and makes Anglicanism a church by Rome's reckoning. But Rome always at least conditionally reordains convert clergy, like Mgr Graham Leonard, who claim the Dutch touch. And of course on top of all that now there's the ordination of women.

And at the other end, yes, the classic Anglican claim to the historic episcopate similarly comes up in talks with non-Catholic churches.

Of course the objective is reunification into the Catholic churches. If not why bother with being a church with bishops and so forth? (Rather the Pope's point though of course his church believes more is essential than that!)

Corrections and clarifications to Steve Schewe's comment: the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not a cardinal, Vatican II did not define any doctrines and extra ecclesiam nulla salus does not mean you have to believe all non-_____ (RCs for example) are going to hell. One can believe that - ! - but doesn't have to. Certainly the reigning Pope doesn't! The late Fr Leonard Feeney made the mistake of claiming his rigorist opinion on EENS was Roman Catholic doctrine.

It's interesting to me that our Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, does not say that the Anglican/Episcopal Church has the whole truth... she takes a very Anglican kind of view...

To which I say: Molto bene!

My answer to every issue in the Episcopal row is:

If you believe as I was taught that you are only a part of the whole church then don't act as though you are the whole church.

Even if we accept the argument about unbroken apostolic succession (which has its own problems), Anglicans have been careful in recent decades to involve Old Catholic bishops in episcopal ordinations. Thus the Pope's argument, when applied to Anglicans, collapses.

I'm always a bit leery of those who claim to have "The Truth," as opposed to rest of us poor misguided souls who stumble on with what the Rev. Mr. Harmon calls "only part of the whole truth." Why then, do we not fly, fly, FLY on down to Holy Agony-by-the-Bayou for a quick conversion and a lifetime of "The Truth?"

The Church of Rome, the LDS, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Jehovah's Witnesses (ah, the denomination of my childhood!), and every two-bit five-member Reformed Druids-In-Christ cult all say "My way or the highway." (The "highway" in this case being the broad way to the narrow gate leading off to Damnedforalleternityville.)

Then there are the learned theologians such as Mr. Harmon who hang their hats on strict conditions for any attempts at ecumenism such as "My Brother, AT THE VERY LEAST you MUST be served dual specie communion from the sterling silver commemorative shoehorn from Elko, NV that's been blessed by the holy and rightful successor to St. Betsy from Pike. And the water for said blessing MUST be drawn from the north side of the south well at Mattress Springs, ID. South side of the north well? Oops, sorry, that's so close to hell, your eyebrows will singe when you draw a bucketful.

Of course, there's that age-old question "Just what in the Sam Hill is this 'Truth' stuff they're talking about anyway?" (Oh, I know it's a misquote, but I don't think it was original with PP to begin with.) Is it like obscenity, where Justice Stewart couldn't define it, but knew it when he saw it?

For now, I'll leave the arguments for/against Truth to my philosophical and theological betters and just hum "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Today, that's pretty much all the Truth I need.

Doug Curlin

That sounds right, Ormonde. But what about ecumenism between Episcopalians and denominations that are not Catholic?

In the post the question about Apostolic succession and ecumenism was meant to be the barrier that creates between Episcopalians and denominations for whom that has not been an issue.

The claim to the historic episcopate is an integral part of Anglicanism as reflected in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral as one of the four requirements in a church union, something it shares with Rome and the Eastern churches.