Not proper churches
The Roman Catholic Church reiterated its position that Protestant groups including Anglicans are not proper "Churches." According to a press release from Vatican City and approved by the Pope:
"Made public today was a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." It is dated June 29, Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, Apostles, and bears the signatures of Cardinal William Joseph Levada and Archbishop Angelo Amato S.D.B., respectively prefect and secretary of the congregation."
The document offers 5 questions and answers on the status of bodies and churches outside the Roman Catholic Church. The fifth question has to do with those who have separated since the Reformation and why they are not proper churches.
"Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of 'Church' with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?"Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense.
Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction offers a fine commentary.
The full press release is here.
More news from The Times and the Washington Post
This news makes Ruth Gledhill of The Times proud to be an Anglican.
And yet when we were on the verge of ordaining our first women presbyters and then bishops eminent RC leaders told us that doing so would impair ecumenical relations. Now it turns out that they never considered us Christians in a meaningful sense after all, and that "absolutely null and utterly void" has always been the real position.
And that's fine. They can believe what they want to believe. We just should stop worrying about it.
John David Bassett
Posted by jdbassett![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 10, 2007 8:11 PM
There is nothing new in this statement. This has been the position of the Catholic Church. However, this public reaffirmation will only make life harder for children of inter-faith marriages.
Posted by Marla Harrington![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 10, 2007 10:52 PM
It is precisely this distinction made by Rome that concerns me about Rowan Cantuar's desire that the Anglican Communion be a "church," and not simply "a federation, and perhaps less than a federation." (If you're interested, you can read my thoughts at http://episcopalhospitalchaplain.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-calling-for-new-ecclesiology.html.) If this is the model that Archbishop Williams looks to, I fear that in fact he does want a new ecclesiology.
I am one who does not immediately discard the concept of "covenant," but I certainly have concerns about whether a specific covenant, a specific document, could be acceptable in fact. It is easy enough for us to say, "Let the Romans claim their exclusivity; but we will trust in Christ." However, if Williams sees something essential in this Roman sense of what defines the Church, there is real risk as to what a final draft covenant may contain.
Marshall Scott
Posted by mscottsail![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 10, 2007 11:05 PM