The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation recently held its annual meeting and has just released the text of two statements: one on the date of Easter, and the other entitled “Steps Towards a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future”. The latter statement is reproduced below
---------------
STEPS TOWARDS A REUNITED CHURCH: A SKETCH OF AN ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC VISION FOR THE FUTURE
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
Georgetown University, Washington, DC
October 2, 2010
1. Prologue. For almost forty-five years, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation has been meeting regularly to discuss some of the major pastoral and doctrinal issues that prevent our Churches from sharing a single life of faith, sacraments, and witness before the world. Our goal has been to pave the way towards sharing fully in Eucharistic communion through recognizing and accepting each other as integral parts of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
2. A Central Point of Disagreement. In the course of our discussions, it has become increasingly clear to us that the most divisive element in our traditions has been a growing diversity, since the late patristic centuries, in the ways we understand the structure of the Church itself, particularly our understanding of the forms of headship that seem essential to the Church’s being at the local, regional and worldwide levels. At the heart of our differences stands the way each of our traditions understands the proper exercise of primacy in the leadership of the Church, both within the various regions of the Christian world and within Christianity as a whole. In order to be the Body of Christ in its fullness — to be both “Orthodox” and “Catholic” — does a local community, gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, have to be united with the other Churches that share the Apostolic faith, not only through Scripture, doctrine, and tradition, but also through common worldwide structures of authority — particularly through the practice of a universal synodality in union with the bishop of Rome?
It seems to be no exaggeration, in fact, to say that the root obstacle preventing the Orthodox and Catholic Churches from growing steadily towards sacramental and practical unity has been, and continues to be, the role that the bishop of Rome plays in the worldwide Catholic communion. While for Catholics, maintaining communion in faith and sacraments with the bishop of Rome is considered a necessary criterion for being considered Church in the full sense, for Orthodox, as well as for Protestants, it is precisely the pope’s historic claims to authority in teaching and Church life that are most at variance with the image of the Church presented to us in the New Testament and in early Christian writings. In the carefully understated words of Pope John Paul II, “the Catholic Church’s conviction that in the ministry of the bishop of Rome she has preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the visible sign and guarantor of unity, constitutes a difficulty for most other Christians, whose memory is marked by certain painful recollections” (Ut Unum Sint 88).
3. Divergent Histories. The historical roots of this difference in vision go back many centuries. Episcopal and regional structures of leadership have developed in different ways in the Churches of Christ, and are to some extent based on social and political expectations that reach back to early Christianity. In Christian antiquity, the primary reality of the local Church, centered in a city and bound by special concerns to the other Churches of the same province or region, served as the main model for Church unity. The bishop of a province’s metropolitan or capital city came to be recognized early as the one who presided at that province’s regular synods of bishops (see Apostolic Canon 34). Notwithstanding regional structural differences, a sense of shared faith and shared Apostolic origins, expressed in the shared Eucharist and in the mutual recognition of bishops, bound these local communities together in the consciousness of being one Church, while the community in each place saw itself as a full embodiment of the Church of the apostles.
In the Latin Church, a sense of the distinctive importance of the bishop of Rome, as the leading although not the sole spokesman for the apostolic tradition, goes back at least to the second century, and was expressed in a variety of ways. By the mid-fourth century, bishops of Rome began to intervene more explicitly in doctrinal and liturgical disputes in Italy and the Latin West, and through the seventh century took an increasingly influential, if geographically more distant, role in the Christological controversies that so sharply divided the Eastern Churches. It was only in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, during what is known as the Gregorian reforms, that the bishops of Rome, in response to centuries-old encroachments on the freedom and integrity of Church life by local secular rulers, began to assert the independence of a centrally-organized Catholic Church in a way that was to prove distinctive in Western society. Gradually, a vision of the Church of Christ as a universal, socially independent single body — parallel to the civil structure of the Empire, consisting of local or “particular” Churches, and held together by unity of faith and sacraments with the bishop of Rome — developed in Latin Christianity, and became, for the West, the normative scheme for imagining the Church as a whole.
Even in the Middle Ages, however, this centralized vision of the universal Church was not shared by the Orthodox Churches. In April, 1136, for instance, a Roman legate – the German bishop Anselm of Havelberg — visited Constantinople and engaged in a series of learned and irenic dialogues on issues dividing the Churches with the Byzantine Emperor’s representative, Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia. In the course of their conversations, Nicetas frequently expresses his love and respect for the Roman see, as having traditionally the “first place” among the three patriarchal sees – Rome, Alexandria and Antioch – that had been regarded, he says, since ancient times as “sisters.” Nicetas argues that the main scope of Rome’s authority among the other Churches was its right to receive appeals from other sees “in disputed cases,” in which “matters which were not covered by sure rules should be submitted to its judgment for decision” (Dialogues 3.7: PL 1217 D). Decisions of Western synods, however, which were then being held under papal sponsorship, were not, in Nicetas’s view, binding on the Eastern Churches. As Nicetas puts it, “Although we do not differ from the Roman Church in professing the same Catholic faith, still, because we do not attend councils with her in these times, how should we receive her decisions that have in fact been composed without our consent — indeed, without our awareness?” (ibid. 1219 B). For the Orthodox consciousness, even in the twelfth century, the particular authority traditionally attached to the see of Rome has to be contextualized in regular synodal practice that includes representatives of all the Churches.
By the mid-nineteenth century, the Western emphasis on the Church’s political and social autonomy had become a central feature of a distinctively Catholic ecclesiology. Reformation disputes about the nature of the Church’s institutions and the importance of ecclesial traditions had led Catholic theology to emphasize the Church’s institutional self-sufficiency in a way unprecedented in patristic thinking, and unparalleled in the Christian East. The challenges of the Western Enlightenment to religious faith, and the threats of the new secular, absolutist forms of civil government that developed in nineteenth-century Europe, challenged the competence and even the right of Catholic institutions to teach and care for their own people. In this context, the emphasis of the First Vatican Council’s document Pastor Aeternus (1870) on the Catholic Church’s ability to speak the truth about God’s self-revelation in a free and unapologetic way, and to find the criteria for judging and formulating that truth within its own tradition, can be understood as a reaffirmation of the apostolic vision of a Church called by Christ to teach and judge through its own structures (see, e.g., Matt 16:18; 18.15-20; Lk 10.16). Yet Vatican I’s way of formulating the authority of Catholic Church officials — particularly its definition of the Pope’s “true and proper primacy of jurisdiction” over each local Church and every Christian bishop (DS 3055, 3063), and its insistence that the Pope, “when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians… possesses… that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine” — shocked critics of the Catholic Church, and has remained since then a focus of debate and further interpretation within the Catholic world. Despite the attempt of the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium 23-25 [1964]) to contextualize and refine this portrait of papal authority and Church structure, the Catholic Church’s vision of a teaching authority and a practical decision-making power vested in the Pope, who faces few wider institutional checks, has been a principal cause of division between it and the Churches outside its communion.
In the Eastern world, structures of authority and community in the Church developed in a somewhat different pattern from the fourth century onwards. The bishop of Constantinople was recognized in 381 as “patriarch,” and second in order of precedence after the bishop of “the old Rome”; after the Council of Chalcedon (451), he exercised supra-metropolitan authority in the northern part of the Eastern Empire, and was responsible for Christian missionary efforts outside the imperial borders. His see, along with the patriarchates of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, was recognized in the legislation of the Emperor Justinian, in the sixth century, as forming a “pentarchy” of primatial leadership among all the Churches. But while the Western Church went on to develop its own institutional independence in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages under the headship of the bishop of Rome, the Eastern Churches remained fully integrated into the religious and political fabric of the late Roman Empire, even as the Empire’s territory dwindled under the domination of Arab and Turkish peoples. The Church’s main doctrinal definitions remained imperial law; maintaining Christian unity was an important imperial priority. And when the Eastern Roman Empire finally fell before the Turkish invaders in 1453, the Churches of the eastern patriarchates shared the political and social role of unifying and protecting the Christian minorities in lands dominated by a variety of Muslim rulers. In the Slavic territories to the north and east, new metropolitan sees and new patriarchates continued to develop after the fall of Constantinople, carrying out the mission of unifying newly converted Christian peoples, who largely shared the same geographical, linguistic and ethnic characteristics. Primacy had a less supra-national character than it had acquired in the Latin Church; what we presently call autocephaly — ecclesiastical independence correlative to the emerging nation-state — had become the underlying pattern for ecclesiastical organization.
Custom and habit, in all human societies, tend to become law. Structures that had come into being gradually, under the pressures of changing cultural and political conditions, came to be seen in both Eastern and Western Christianity as normative for the life of the Church. Yet precisely in our times, when centralized power is increasingly felt to be oppressive, and national identities and traditions are increasingly overwhelmed by the complexities of migration, mass communication, and supranational forces, questions continue to be raised about the enduring value of these structures. In our discussions, and indeed in discussions within our two Churches, such basic questions about the normativity of our current structures are inescapable.
4. What We Share. Despite disagreement on the place of the bishop of Rome in the worldwide cohesion of Christianity, however, it seems to us obvious that what we share, as Orthodox and Catholic Christians, significantly overshadows our differences. Both our Churches emphasize the continuity of apostolic teaching as the heart of our faith, received within the interpretive context of the historical Christian community. Both believe our life as Churches to be centered on the Divine Liturgy, and to be formed and nourished in each individual by the Word of God and the Church’s sacraments: baptism, the anointing with chrism, and the reception of the Eucharist mark, in each of our Churches, the entry of believers into the Body of Christ, while ordination by a bishop sets some of them apart for permanent sacramental ministry and leadership, and the marriage of a Christian man and woman within the liturgical community forms them into living signs of the union of Christ and the Church. Both our Churches recognize that “the Church of God exists where there is a community gathered together in the Eucharist, presided over, directly or through his presbyters, by a bishop legitimately ordained into the apostolic succession, teaching the faith received from the apostles, in communion with the other bishops and their Churches” (Joint International Dialogue, Ravenna Statement [2007] 18). Both our Churches, too, recognize the importance of various kinds of primacy, as the Ravenna statement further affirms: “Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church,” even though “there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations” (ibid. 43). Both our Churches venerate Mary, the Mother of God, as the foremost among those transformed by the grace of Christ’s redemption, and both also honor a whole range of holy men and women from every age, many of them common to our two traditions. Both our Churches cherish ancient practices that help the faithful grow in holiness, value personal asceticism and fasting, reverence sacred images, promote the monastic life, and set a high value on contemplative prayer. In all of these ways, our lives as Churches are enriched by the same spiritual resources. A significant degree of communion already exists between us.
5. A Matter of Urgency. In light of the divine gifts that we share, then, it seems all the more urgent to us that our Churches grow closer together, in ways that the men and women of our time can see. The fact that our two Christian families have been separated in some central points of theology and Church discipline for almost a thousand years, and as a result no longer share in the sacramental communion that bound us together during the first millennium, is not only a violation of the will of God, as expressed in the prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper that his disciples “may be one” (John 17.21), but is also a serious impediment to effective Christian engagement in the world, and to the effective realization of our common mission to preach the Gospel. Marriages involving members of both our traditions are increasingly common, especially in ethnically pluralistic countries, creating serious problems in Christian education and practice for the families involved. All of these factors urgently call our Churches to overcome their division. As our largely secular world reaches constantly for new technical means of communication, and for mutual understanding within all its cultural and political diversity, it is urgent that Orthodox and Catholic Christians find an effective way to realize our common tradition of faith together, and to present the world with a unified testimony to the Lordship of Jesus. To be what we are called to be, we need each other. In the words of the Second Vatican Council, “The divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her” (Unitatis Redintegratio 4). To become what we are, effectively and permanently, we cannot stop short of re-establishing full Eucharistic communion among ourselves. Clearly, this cannot be achieved without new, better harmonized structures of leadership on both sides: new conceptions of both synodality and primacy in the universal Church, new approaches to the way primacy and authority are exercised in both our communions.
6. The Shape of Communion. It is difficult to predict what a structure of worldwide ecclesial communion, sacramental and spiritual, between our Churches, might look like. Some of its main features, however, would include the following:
a) Mutual Recognition: the larger units of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity, including patriarchates and other autocephalous Churches, would explicitly recognize each other as authentic embodiments of the one Church of Christ, founded on the apostles. This would include the recognition of our fundamental agreement on central Christian dogmas, as revealed in Scripture and articulated in mutually recognized ecumenical Councils, despite variations in our theological and liturgical traditions.
b) A Common Confession of Faith: both our Churches would confess the same basic Christian faith, as expressed in the Christian canon of Scripture and in the Churches’ traditional creeds. The “faith of Nicaea,” professed by the ancient councils as the foundation of Christian faith and practice, is received most fully in the original form canonized at the Council of Constantinople in 381, as understood through the canons and prescriptions of the other ecumenical councils received by Orthodox and Catholic Christians. As we have suggested in our 2003 statement “The Filioque: a Church-Dividing Issue?” the original Greek form of the Creed of 381, because of its authority and antiquity, should be used as the common form of our confession in both our Churches.
c) Accepted Diversity: different parts of this single Body of Christ, drawing on their different histories and different cultural and spiritual traditions, would live in full ecclesial communion with each other without requiring any of the parts to forego its own traditions and practices (see Unitatis Redintegratio 16).
d) Liturgical Sharing: members of all the Churches in communion would be able to receive the sacraments in the other Churches; priests and bishops would express their unity in concelebration, and the heads of the other Churches would be commemorated liturgically in the diptychs. In addition, other forms of common liturgical prayer would be encouraged as a regular practice involving both our Churches.
e) Synodality/Conciliarity: the bishops of the reunited Churches would meet regularly in regional synods, which would regulate the common life and relationships of the Churches in a particular region and provide an occasion for mutual correction and support. Bishops of all the Churches would be invited to participate fully in any ecumenical councils that might be summoned. Synodality would operate at various levels of ecclesial institutions: local, regional and worldwide. Aside from episcopal structures of synodality, the laity would be active participants in this dimension of Church life.
f) Mission: all the Churches would share a common concern for what directly affects their unity, as well as for their mission to non-Christians. As sister Churches, they would also engage in common efforts to promote the realization of a Christian moral vision in the world.
g) Subsidiarity: following the ancient principle recognized as normative for well-organized human structures, “higher” instances of episcopal authority would only be expected to act when “lower” instances were unable to make and implement the decisions necessary for continuing union in faith. This would mean, among other things, that in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, at least, bishops would be elected by local synods or by other traditional methods of selection. Those elected to major episcopal or primatial offices would present themselves to other Church leaders at their level, to their own patriarch, and to the bishop of Rome as first among the patriarchs, by the exchange and reception of letters of communion, according to ancient Christian custom. The bishop of Rome would also inform the Eastern patriarchs of his election.
h) Renewal and Reform. Ordered growth is essential to the health and well-being of the Church, and this means both continuity and change. For the Church, an essential aspect of this growth is renewal: the continual rediscovery of its fundamental identity as the Body of Christ, based on its experience of the Paschal Mystery, in the constant readiness to take on new forms of common life and witness and to adapt itself to new historical situations. In the words of a late medieval aphorism, “The Church is always in need of reform (ecclesia semper reformanda).” By making their catholicity concrete through full communion, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would be realizing this life of reform in a new, undreamed-of way, and would be committing themselves to continuing renewal and growth – but now together. Life in communion with each other would be a life lived in readiness for a new Pentecost, in which people of many nations and cultures are formed anew by the living Word of God.
7. The Role of the Papacy. In such a communion of Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today. Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:
a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting. His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church. The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would. The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.
b) In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion. The “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction of every bishop within his particular Church, would be “affirmed, strengthened and vindicated” by the exercise of the bishop of Rome’s ministry (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium27; cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 3). In a reunited Church, this understanding of papal and episcopal authority, as complementary and mutually enhancing, would have to be expanded to include the much more complex patterns of local, primatial, and patriarchal leadership that have developed in the Eastern Churches since patristic times.
c) The fundamental worldwide ministry of the bishop of Rome would be to promote the communion of all the local Churches: to call on them to remain anchored in the unity of the Apostolic faith, and to observe the Church’s traditional canons. He would do this as a witness to the faith of Peter and Paul, a role inherited from his early predecessors who presided over the Church in that city where Peter and Paul gave their final witness.
d) His universal role would also be expressed in convoking and presiding over regular synods of patriarchs of all the Churches, and over ecumenical councils, when they should occur. In the Western Church, this same presiding function would include convoking and leading regular episcopal synods. In harmony with the Pope’s universal ecumenical ministry, the Roman curia’s relationship to local bishops and episcopal conferences in the Latin Church would become less centralized: bishops, for instance, would have more control over the agenda and the final documents of synods, and the selection of bishops would again normally become a local process.
e) In cases of conflict between bishops and their primates that cannot be resolved locally or regionally, the bishop of Rome would be expected to arrange for a juridical appeal process, perhaps to be implemented by local bishops, as provided for in canon 3 of the Synod of Sardica (343). In cases of dispute among primates, the bishop of Rome would be expected to mediate and to bring the crisis to brotherly resolution. And in crises of doctrine that might occasionally concern the whole Christian family, bishops throughout the world would have the right to appeal to him also for doctrinal guidance, much as Theodoret of Cyrus did to Pope Leo I in 449, during the controversy over the person of Christ that preceded the Council of Chalcedon (Ep. 113).
8. Preparatory Steps. To prepare for an eventual restoration of full communion within a reunited Church formed from the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, a number of steps might be helpful.
a) Delegations of Orthodox and Catholic bishops in a nation or region could begin to gather regularly for consultation on pastoral issues. Patriarchs and representatives of the autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches could also meet with the Pope and leading Catholic bishops and curial officials on a regular basis for consultation and planning.
b) The Pope and the Orthodox primates could invite all the faithful under their jurisdiction to recognize each other’s Churches as “sister Churches” that fully realize the Apostolic faith in doctrine, sacraments and ecclesial life, despite the historically different forms in which our liturgy is celebrated, our doctrine taught, and our community life structured.
c) Special liturgical services and activities of common prayer and social ministry, involving lay people of both communions, could be organized as a way of drawing Orthodox and Catholic Christians into a deeper practical awareness of their common faith and dependence on God.
d) Ultimately, new structures of authority, in which the relationships of local and regional primates are concretely regulated, would need to be instituted by common consultation, perhaps by an ecumenical council.
9. Outstanding Questions and Problems. Confronted by these long-term prospects of growth towards ecclesial unity, we are aware that many serious theological, liturgical and structural questions remain unsolved, and need to be considered further. For example:
a) To what extent is the distinctive role of the pope rooted in the New Testament? How far is the role of Peter in the New Testament to be taken as setting out a pattern of leadership “inherited” by the bishops of Rome, whose Church rests on the ancient site of Peter’s martyrdom? While some of the Church Fathers present the Peter of Scripture as a model for all bishops, or even for the whole believing community, others – especially some fourth- and fifth-century bishops of Rome – have stressed the unique, even mystical connection between Peter and the later Popes who led Peter’s local Church. To what extent do these Scriptural interpretations simply reflect differing ecclesiologies?
b) What limits should be acknowledged, canonically and theologically, to the exercise of initiatives by the bishop of Rome in a universally reunited Church? What limits should be acknowledged to the authority and jurisdiction of the other patriarchs? Who has the authority to define these limits? To what extent can the formula of Apostolic Canon 34, from the late fourth century, serve as a model for the universal Church as well as for the local Churches: “The bishops of each national group should recognize the one who has first place among them, and consider him as head, and do nothing out of the ordinary without his agreement;… but neither should he do anything without the agreement of all”?
c) What kind of accountability can be canonically demanded of the bishop of Rome in his primatial role? What relevance does the ancient western principle used later by the defenders of papal authority, “the first see is to be judged by no one else,” have in today’s world of constitutionally regulated authority? What does the synodal or collegial dimension of papal authority imply for the Pope’s concrete exercise of his proper jurisdiction?
d) Can the bishop of Rome, as the one responsible for convening synods and councils of the universal Church, compel attendance and participation by representatives of particular Churches? Can he overrule those councils’ initiatives? Can he lay down rules of procedure?
e) What limits should be set to the common Orthodox practice of recognizing the autocephaly or autonomy of particular churches on ethnic, linguistic and geographical grounds? By what primatial and synodal authorities does such independence need to be recognized? Should diversity of national background continue to determine the structures of church life in a world that is increasingly shaped by the migration of peoples? What should the effect of today’s ethnic and cultural pluralism be on the unity and diversity of local Church organization, in countries representing the Orthodox “diaspora”? What aspects of the ancient principle of “one bishop, one place” can be reclaimed in contemporary society?
f) Beyond these technical questions, how much formal agreement on doctrine and Church structure is necessary before the Orthodox and Catholic Churches permit local communities to begin at least some degree of sacramental communion with each other? If diversity within our own Churches on theological issues is usually not seen as a barrier to Eucharistic sharing, should we allow the differences between Orthodox and Catholic Christians to overrule the substantial agreement our Churches already enjoy on most of the fundamental issues of faith, and keep us from receiving each other at the Eucharistic table, at least on some occasions? Would it be acceptable to both of our Churches to allow priests of one Church at least to care for the dying in the other, when no priest of their own is available? The extraordinary practice of shared communion has been carried on, at various critical points of recent history, in some parts of the world, and is occasionally carried on today. Can this serve as a precedent for wider Eucharistic sharing? Can such occasional sharing of communion serve as a concrete step towards deeper and more lasting unity?
10. One Body. In his Commentary on the 17th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel, St. Cyril of Alexandria argues that the unity of the Church, modeled on the unity of Father and Son and realized through the gift of the Spirit, is primarily formed in us through the Eucharist in which the disciples of Jesus share:
For by liturgically blessing (eulogōn) those who believe in him into a single body – namely, his own – through sacramental participation, [Christ] has made them completely one body with himself and with each other. Who, after all, could divide, or alienate from natural unity with one another, those who are bound through the one holy body into unity with Christ? For if ‘all of us partake of the one loaf’ (1 Cor 10.17), all of us are formed into one body. It is impossible to divide Christ. That is the reason that the church is called the Body of Christ, and we are individually his members, as Paul understands it. For since we are all united with Christ through his holy Body – which we take, one and undivided, into our own bodies – we owe our own limbs more to him than to ourselves…
How, then are we all not clearly one [Cyril goes on to ask] in each other and in Christ? For Christ is himself the bond of unity, existing at the same time as God and as a human being…. And all of us who have received one and the same Spirit – I mean the Holy Spirit – are blended together, in a certain way, with each other and with God… For just as the power of his holy flesh forms those to whom it comes into a single body, in the same way, I believe, the one Spirit of God, who dwells in all of us undivided, brings us all to a spiritual unity (Comm. on John 11.11 [ed. Pusey 2.735-737]).
Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst. The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world.
Posted in Catholic Ecumenism, Church History, Communio in sacris, East/West, Eastern Catholicism, Ecclesiology, Filioque, Joint Documents, Mary, News, Orthodox Ecumenism, Primacy, Reunion, Rome, Sacraments, Schism, Scripture, Theology, dogma |
Welcome to ECUMENISM. This is a posting site for the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Palm Beach, Florida
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Ecumenism alive and well as Pope Benedict XVI visits Edinburgh
On the eve of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United Kingdom, three stalwarts of Scottish ecumenism and the “churches together” movement met on Tuesday evening to assess church relations today. The three church leaders were Archbishop Mario Conti (Roman Catholic archbishop of Glasgow), Christine Davis (Religious Society of Friends / Quakers) and the Rev. Dr Sheilagh Kesting (ecumenical officer of the Church of Scotland and former moderator of its General Assembly). They shared reflections about the successes, disappointments and hopes of churches working together in the nation.
The last time a pope visited Edinburgh, Scotland, was in 1982 when the popular Pope John Paul II was welcomed into the heart of Scottish Protestantism and made a visit to New College and the theological faculty at the University of Edinburgh.
At the time there was nervousness in the air, particularly among the leadership of the Church of Scotland who, according to Archbishop Conti, were to meet with John Paul II “on their home turf”.
While the meeting with the pope went perfectly well, the church and ecumenical landscape of Scotland was in for a sea-change over the next three decades. This change has marked an improvement in relations according to these three pioneers of the modern ecumenical movement.
The formal state visit of Pope Benedict XVI will begin when he is received by Queen Elizabeth II in Edinburgh on Thursday, 16 September. There will be a wide variety of church leaders attending the reception, including the Rev. John Cairns Christie, moderator of General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, general secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC).
The three were part of an evening event sponsored by the 20-year-old organization Action of Churches Together in Scotland (ACTS), the national ecumenical instrument. The event was held in conjunction with this week’s meeting of the WCC Executive Committee at Carberry Tower, near Edinburgh.
The presence in Edinburgh of a governing body of the WCC, which represents more than 550 million Christians around the world including Orthodox, Anglican, Old Catholic, independent and many Protestant groups, and its meeting being held at the same time as the Pope’s visit there, is sheer coincidence.
Still, the circumstance could not go unnoticed as the current pope arrives against an ecclesiastical backdrop that reflects growing cooperation between churches. The WCC Executive Committee’s visit to the city in 2010 honours the centenary of the Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary Conference which historians of Christianity identify as the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement.
Ecumenical progress
When the “churches together” model was adopted in 1990 with the formation of ACTS, there “were vociferous and in some places quite unpleasant protests”, said Christine Davis, one of the early participants in the churches together movement. Archbishop Conti was the first convener of ACTS.
Since then the major denominational groups have been working together on a variety of social and ecclesial initiatives. Davis, while not guaranteeing the behaviour of everyone in relation to the pope’s visit this week, feels certain there will not be a repeat of the sorts of protests that occurred in 1990.
She pointed out that today “at one level, the fact we are working together is taken for granted”. In 2009, “we had a very valuable joint conference of everyone involved in the churches in Scotland on Calvin: Catholic and Reformed”, she said. The theme was inspired by the 500th anniversary of Protestant reformer John Calvin’s birth. “Now, that is the kind of event which allowed us to be learning together about a part of church history people don’t normally see as having in common.”
Conti for his part views the work of ACTS as becoming the “title for the engagement of the ecumenical movement”. The role of ACTS is all about “engagement, respect and listening”, he said.
Sheilagh Kesting, who was also involved in the formation of ACTS, talked about landmark developments that grew out of the Swanwick consultation in 1992, with “people reporting afterwards about the moment when Cardinal Hume of England came forward and said the Roman Catholic Church was ready to come into a new ecumenical structure, the churches together, that we now call ACTS”.
The momentum this created, along with the subsequent leadership and grassroots work of the churches together, has led “the Roman Catholic church into the ecumenical movement, and this is not something we wanted to go back on”, Kesting said.
Still, ACTS and the churches together movement have not led to unity in all things; there remain stark differences between churches. But what has happened, according to Conti, is that the churches resist criticizing each other in public and work at respecting their differences and discussing them together.
Today it is more likely churches will consult with each other before they move forward on important matters, according to Kesting. Some of the disappointments the group felt about the churches together movement is that it may not be challenging the churches enough, Kesting added.
Conti said that there remain challenges in regard to issues of morality and ethics, such as family values and homosexuality.
Even with these sort of “mismatches” among churches in the same communities, particularly around ecclesial issues, this sometimes “baffles people” Davis said, “but it doesn’t stop them from getting on”.
Despite these challenges, all three ecumenical stalwarts saw hope in the movement of churches together, with ACTS and agencies like the WCC at the forefront. There was strong participation of the churches in addressing social issues such as poverty, Conti observed.
In conclusion, Davis said that churches have to share their resources better, deal with their own internal divisions, look at broader inter-religious and secular issues and in the end live out the good news of Jesus Christ, “which is to be extended to everyone we meet”.
ACTS website
WCC member churches in the United Kingdom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Council of Churches promotes Christian unity in faith, witness and service for a just and peaceful world. An ecumenical fellowship of churches founded in 1948, today the WCC brings together 349 Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches representing more than 560 million Christians in over 110 countries, and works cooperatively with the Roman Catholic Church. The WCC general secretary is Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, from the [Lutheran] Church of Norway. Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland.
The last time a pope visited Edinburgh, Scotland, was in 1982 when the popular Pope John Paul II was welcomed into the heart of Scottish Protestantism and made a visit to New College and the theological faculty at the University of Edinburgh.
At the time there was nervousness in the air, particularly among the leadership of the Church of Scotland who, according to Archbishop Conti, were to meet with John Paul II “on their home turf”.
While the meeting with the pope went perfectly well, the church and ecumenical landscape of Scotland was in for a sea-change over the next three decades. This change has marked an improvement in relations according to these three pioneers of the modern ecumenical movement.
The formal state visit of Pope Benedict XVI will begin when he is received by Queen Elizabeth II in Edinburgh on Thursday, 16 September. There will be a wide variety of church leaders attending the reception, including the Rev. John Cairns Christie, moderator of General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, general secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC).
The three were part of an evening event sponsored by the 20-year-old organization Action of Churches Together in Scotland (ACTS), the national ecumenical instrument. The event was held in conjunction with this week’s meeting of the WCC Executive Committee at Carberry Tower, near Edinburgh.
The presence in Edinburgh of a governing body of the WCC, which represents more than 550 million Christians around the world including Orthodox, Anglican, Old Catholic, independent and many Protestant groups, and its meeting being held at the same time as the Pope’s visit there, is sheer coincidence.
Still, the circumstance could not go unnoticed as the current pope arrives against an ecclesiastical backdrop that reflects growing cooperation between churches. The WCC Executive Committee’s visit to the city in 2010 honours the centenary of the Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary Conference which historians of Christianity identify as the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement.
Ecumenical progress
When the “churches together” model was adopted in 1990 with the formation of ACTS, there “were vociferous and in some places quite unpleasant protests”, said Christine Davis, one of the early participants in the churches together movement. Archbishop Conti was the first convener of ACTS.
Since then the major denominational groups have been working together on a variety of social and ecclesial initiatives. Davis, while not guaranteeing the behaviour of everyone in relation to the pope’s visit this week, feels certain there will not be a repeat of the sorts of protests that occurred in 1990.
She pointed out that today “at one level, the fact we are working together is taken for granted”. In 2009, “we had a very valuable joint conference of everyone involved in the churches in Scotland on Calvin: Catholic and Reformed”, she said. The theme was inspired by the 500th anniversary of Protestant reformer John Calvin’s birth. “Now, that is the kind of event which allowed us to be learning together about a part of church history people don’t normally see as having in common.”
Conti for his part views the work of ACTS as becoming the “title for the engagement of the ecumenical movement”. The role of ACTS is all about “engagement, respect and listening”, he said.
Sheilagh Kesting, who was also involved in the formation of ACTS, talked about landmark developments that grew out of the Swanwick consultation in 1992, with “people reporting afterwards about the moment when Cardinal Hume of England came forward and said the Roman Catholic Church was ready to come into a new ecumenical structure, the churches together, that we now call ACTS”.
The momentum this created, along with the subsequent leadership and grassroots work of the churches together, has led “the Roman Catholic church into the ecumenical movement, and this is not something we wanted to go back on”, Kesting said.
Still, ACTS and the churches together movement have not led to unity in all things; there remain stark differences between churches. But what has happened, according to Conti, is that the churches resist criticizing each other in public and work at respecting their differences and discussing them together.
Today it is more likely churches will consult with each other before they move forward on important matters, according to Kesting. Some of the disappointments the group felt about the churches together movement is that it may not be challenging the churches enough, Kesting added.
Conti said that there remain challenges in regard to issues of morality and ethics, such as family values and homosexuality.
Even with these sort of “mismatches” among churches in the same communities, particularly around ecclesial issues, this sometimes “baffles people” Davis said, “but it doesn’t stop them from getting on”.
Despite these challenges, all three ecumenical stalwarts saw hope in the movement of churches together, with ACTS and agencies like the WCC at the forefront. There was strong participation of the churches in addressing social issues such as poverty, Conti observed.
In conclusion, Davis said that churches have to share their resources better, deal with their own internal divisions, look at broader inter-religious and secular issues and in the end live out the good news of Jesus Christ, “which is to be extended to everyone we meet”.
ACTS website
WCC member churches in the United Kingdom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Council of Churches promotes Christian unity in faith, witness and service for a just and peaceful world. An ecumenical fellowship of churches founded in 1948, today the WCC brings together 349 Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches representing more than 560 million Christians in over 110 countries, and works cooperatively with the Roman Catholic Church. The WCC general secretary is Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, from the [Lutheran] Church of Norway. Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland.
Female Diaconate restored by Greek Holy Synod
Published by Americamagazine.org,
February 7, 2005
'Grant Her Your Spirit' By Phyllis Zagano
The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece voted in Athens on Oct. 8, 2004, to restore the female diaconate. All the members of the Holy Synod - 125 metropolitans and bishops and Archbishop Christodoulos, the head of the church of Greece-had considered the topic. The decision does not directly affect the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, which is an eparchy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Greek ecclesiastical provinces of the Ecumenical Patriarchate received their independence from Constantinople in 1850 and were proclaimed the Autocephalous Church of Greece.
While women deacons had virtually disappeared by the ninth century, discussion of the restoration of women in the diaconate in Orthodoxy began in the latter half of the 20th century. Two books on the topic by Evangelos Theodorou, Heroines of Love: Deaconesses Through the Ages (1949) and The "Ordination" or "Appointment" of Deaconesses (1954), documented the sacramental ordination of women in the early church. His work was complemented in the Catholic Church by an article published by Cipriano Vagaggini, a Camaldolese monk, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica in 1974.
The most significant scholarship on the topic agrees that women were sacramentally ordained to the diaconate, inside the iconostasis at the altar, by bishops in the early church. Women deacons received the diaconal stole and Communion at their ordinations, which shared the same Pentecostal quality as the ordination of a bishop, priest or male deacon. Despite the decline of the order of deaconesses in the early Middle Ages, Orthodoxy never prohibited it. In 1907 a Russian Orthodox Church commission reported the presence of deaconesses in every Georgian parish; the popular 20th-century Orthodox saint Nektarios (1846-1920) ordained two women as deacons in 1911; and up to the 1950's a few Greek Orthodox nuns became monastic deaconesses. In 1986 Christodoulos, then metropolitan of Demetrias and now archbishop of Athens and all of Greece, ordained a woman deacon according to the "ritual of St. Nektarios"-the ancient Byzantine text St. Nektarios used. Multiple inter-Orthodox conferences called for the restoration of the order, including the Interorthodox Symposium at Rhodes, Greece, in 1988, which plainly stated, "The apostolic order of deaconess should be revived."
The symposium noted that "the revival of this ancient order should be envisaged on the basis of the ancient prototypes testified to in many sources and with the prayers found in the Apostolic Constitutions and the ancient Byzantine liturgical books." At the Holy Synod meeting in Athens in 2004, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Chalkidos initiated discussion on the subject of the role of women in the Church of Greece and the rejuvenation of the order of female deacons.
In the ensuing discussion, some older bishops apparently disagreed with the complete restoration of the order. Anthimos, bishop of Thessaloniki, later remarked to the Kathimerini English Daily, "As far as I know, the induction of women into the police and the army was a failure, and we want to return to this old matter?" While the social-service aspect of the female diaconate is well known, the Holy Synod decided that women could be promoted to the diaconate only in remote monasteries and at the discretion of individual bishops. The limiting decision to restore only the monastic female diaconate did not please some synod members.
The Athens News Agency reported that Chrysostomos, bishop of Peristeri, said, "The role of female deacons must be in society and not in the monasteries." Other members of the Holy Synod agreed and stressed that the role of women deacons should be social-for example, the care of the sick. The vote of the Holy Synod to restore ordination of women to the diaconate under limited circumstances may be the most progressive idea the Orthodox Church can bring to the world. The document only gives bishops the option, if they wish, to ordain senior nuns in monasteries of their eparchies. Bishops who choose to promote women to the diaconate will use the ancient Byzantine liturgy that performs the same cheirotonia -- laying on of hands -- for deaconesses as in each major order: bishop, priest and deacon.
Even so, some (mostly Western) scholars have argued that the historical ordination of women deacons was not a cheirotonia, or ordination to major orders, but a cheirothesia, a blessing that signifies installation to a minor order. The confusion is understandable, since the two terms were sometimes used interchangeably, but other scholars are equally convinced that women were ordained to the major order of the diaconate. The proof will be in the liturgy the bishops actually use. At present there is only one liturgy and one tradition by which to create a woman deacon in the Byzantine rite, and it is demonstrably a ritual of ordination for the "servant who is to be ordained to the office of a deacon." Even the document on the diaconate issued by the Vatican's International Theological Commission in 2002 admits that "Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon (451) seems to confirm the fact that deaconesses really were 'ordained' by the imposition of hands (cheirotonia)."
Despite the pejorative use of quotation marks here and elsewhere in the document when historical ordinations of women deacons are mentioned, this Vatican commission seems unwilling to deny the history to which the Church of Greece has now newly returned. Further, the Vatican document points out that the practice of ordaining women deacons according to the Byzantine liturgy lasted at least into the eighth century. It does not review Orthodox practice after 1054. The rejuvenation of the order of deaconess in the Church of Greece is expected to begin during the winter of 2004-5.
The contemporary ordination (cheirotonia) of women provides even more evidence and support for the restoration of the female diaconate in the Catholic Church, which has acknowledged the validity of Orthodox sacraments and orders. Despite the distinction in Canon 1024-"A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly"-one can presume the possibility of a derogation from the law, as suggested by the Canon Law Society of America in 1995, to allow for diaconal ordination of women. (The history of Canon 1024 is clearly one of attempts to restrict women from priesthood, not from the diaconate.) In fact, the Catholic Church has already indirectly acknowledged valid ordinations of women by the Armenian Apostolic Church, one of the churches of the East that ordains women deacons. There are two recent declarations of unity-agreements of mutual recognition of the validity of sacraments and of orders-between Rome and the Armenian Church, one signed by Paul VI and Catholicos Vasken I in 1970, another between John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I in 1996. These agreements are significant, for the Armenian Apostolic Church has retained the female diaconate into modern times. The Armenian Catholicossate of Cilicia has at least four ordained women. One, Sister Hrip'sime, who lives in Istanbul, is listed in the official church calendar published by the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey as follows: "Mother Hrip'sime Proto-deacon Sasunian, born in Soghukoluk, Antioch, in 1928; became a nun in 1953; Proto-deacon in 1984; Mother Superior in 1998. Member of the Kalfayian Order." Mother Hrip'sime has worked to restore the female diaconate as an active social ministry, and for many years was the general director of Bird' s Nest, a combined orphanage, school and social service center near Beiruit, Lebanon. Her diaconate, and that of the three other women deacons, is far from monastic.
The future Catholic response to the documented past and the changing present promises to be interesting. The tone of the International Theological Commission document reveals an attempt to rule out women deacons, but the question is left remarkably open: "It pertains to the ministry of discernment which the Lord established in his church to pronounce authoritatively on this question."
It is becoming increasingly clear that despite the Catholic Church's unwillingness to say yes to the restoration of the female diaconate as an ordained ministry of the Catholic Church, it cannot say no. Prayer for the Ordination of a Woman Deacon O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who replenished with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who did not disdain that your only-begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, did ordain women to be keepers of your holy gates - look down now upon this your servant who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her your Holy Spirit, that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to your glory, and the praise of your Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to you and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen." -Apostolic Constitutions, No. 8 (late fourth century)
--------------------
Phyllis Zagano, Ph.D. is the Aquinas Chair Professor of Catholic Studies at St. Thomas Aquinas College, Sparkill, NY and Senior Research Associate-in-Residence at Hofstra Universty, Hempstead, NY. She is the author of Holy Saturday: An Argument for the Restoration of the Female Diaconate in the Catholic Church (Crossroad, 2000). America (americamagazine.org), Vol. 192 No. 4, February 7, 2005. Copyright © 2005 by America Press, Inc.
February 7, 2005
'Grant Her Your Spirit' By Phyllis Zagano
The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece voted in Athens on Oct. 8, 2004, to restore the female diaconate. All the members of the Holy Synod - 125 metropolitans and bishops and Archbishop Christodoulos, the head of the church of Greece-had considered the topic. The decision does not directly affect the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, which is an eparchy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Greek ecclesiastical provinces of the Ecumenical Patriarchate received their independence from Constantinople in 1850 and were proclaimed the Autocephalous Church of Greece.
While women deacons had virtually disappeared by the ninth century, discussion of the restoration of women in the diaconate in Orthodoxy began in the latter half of the 20th century. Two books on the topic by Evangelos Theodorou, Heroines of Love: Deaconesses Through the Ages (1949) and The "Ordination" or "Appointment" of Deaconesses (1954), documented the sacramental ordination of women in the early church. His work was complemented in the Catholic Church by an article published by Cipriano Vagaggini, a Camaldolese monk, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica in 1974.
The most significant scholarship on the topic agrees that women were sacramentally ordained to the diaconate, inside the iconostasis at the altar, by bishops in the early church. Women deacons received the diaconal stole and Communion at their ordinations, which shared the same Pentecostal quality as the ordination of a bishop, priest or male deacon. Despite the decline of the order of deaconesses in the early Middle Ages, Orthodoxy never prohibited it. In 1907 a Russian Orthodox Church commission reported the presence of deaconesses in every Georgian parish; the popular 20th-century Orthodox saint Nektarios (1846-1920) ordained two women as deacons in 1911; and up to the 1950's a few Greek Orthodox nuns became monastic deaconesses. In 1986 Christodoulos, then metropolitan of Demetrias and now archbishop of Athens and all of Greece, ordained a woman deacon according to the "ritual of St. Nektarios"-the ancient Byzantine text St. Nektarios used. Multiple inter-Orthodox conferences called for the restoration of the order, including the Interorthodox Symposium at Rhodes, Greece, in 1988, which plainly stated, "The apostolic order of deaconess should be revived."
The symposium noted that "the revival of this ancient order should be envisaged on the basis of the ancient prototypes testified to in many sources and with the prayers found in the Apostolic Constitutions and the ancient Byzantine liturgical books." At the Holy Synod meeting in Athens in 2004, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Chalkidos initiated discussion on the subject of the role of women in the Church of Greece and the rejuvenation of the order of female deacons.
In the ensuing discussion, some older bishops apparently disagreed with the complete restoration of the order. Anthimos, bishop of Thessaloniki, later remarked to the Kathimerini English Daily, "As far as I know, the induction of women into the police and the army was a failure, and we want to return to this old matter?" While the social-service aspect of the female diaconate is well known, the Holy Synod decided that women could be promoted to the diaconate only in remote monasteries and at the discretion of individual bishops. The limiting decision to restore only the monastic female diaconate did not please some synod members.
The Athens News Agency reported that Chrysostomos, bishop of Peristeri, said, "The role of female deacons must be in society and not in the monasteries." Other members of the Holy Synod agreed and stressed that the role of women deacons should be social-for example, the care of the sick. The vote of the Holy Synod to restore ordination of women to the diaconate under limited circumstances may be the most progressive idea the Orthodox Church can bring to the world. The document only gives bishops the option, if they wish, to ordain senior nuns in monasteries of their eparchies. Bishops who choose to promote women to the diaconate will use the ancient Byzantine liturgy that performs the same cheirotonia -- laying on of hands -- for deaconesses as in each major order: bishop, priest and deacon.
Even so, some (mostly Western) scholars have argued that the historical ordination of women deacons was not a cheirotonia, or ordination to major orders, but a cheirothesia, a blessing that signifies installation to a minor order. The confusion is understandable, since the two terms were sometimes used interchangeably, but other scholars are equally convinced that women were ordained to the major order of the diaconate. The proof will be in the liturgy the bishops actually use. At present there is only one liturgy and one tradition by which to create a woman deacon in the Byzantine rite, and it is demonstrably a ritual of ordination for the "servant who is to be ordained to the office of a deacon." Even the document on the diaconate issued by the Vatican's International Theological Commission in 2002 admits that "Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon (451) seems to confirm the fact that deaconesses really were 'ordained' by the imposition of hands (cheirotonia)."
Despite the pejorative use of quotation marks here and elsewhere in the document when historical ordinations of women deacons are mentioned, this Vatican commission seems unwilling to deny the history to which the Church of Greece has now newly returned. Further, the Vatican document points out that the practice of ordaining women deacons according to the Byzantine liturgy lasted at least into the eighth century. It does not review Orthodox practice after 1054. The rejuvenation of the order of deaconess in the Church of Greece is expected to begin during the winter of 2004-5.
The contemporary ordination (cheirotonia) of women provides even more evidence and support for the restoration of the female diaconate in the Catholic Church, which has acknowledged the validity of Orthodox sacraments and orders. Despite the distinction in Canon 1024-"A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly"-one can presume the possibility of a derogation from the law, as suggested by the Canon Law Society of America in 1995, to allow for diaconal ordination of women. (The history of Canon 1024 is clearly one of attempts to restrict women from priesthood, not from the diaconate.) In fact, the Catholic Church has already indirectly acknowledged valid ordinations of women by the Armenian Apostolic Church, one of the churches of the East that ordains women deacons. There are two recent declarations of unity-agreements of mutual recognition of the validity of sacraments and of orders-between Rome and the Armenian Church, one signed by Paul VI and Catholicos Vasken I in 1970, another between John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I in 1996. These agreements are significant, for the Armenian Apostolic Church has retained the female diaconate into modern times. The Armenian Catholicossate of Cilicia has at least four ordained women. One, Sister Hrip'sime, who lives in Istanbul, is listed in the official church calendar published by the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey as follows: "Mother Hrip'sime Proto-deacon Sasunian, born in Soghukoluk, Antioch, in 1928; became a nun in 1953; Proto-deacon in 1984; Mother Superior in 1998. Member of the Kalfayian Order." Mother Hrip'sime has worked to restore the female diaconate as an active social ministry, and for many years was the general director of Bird' s Nest, a combined orphanage, school and social service center near Beiruit, Lebanon. Her diaconate, and that of the three other women deacons, is far from monastic.
The future Catholic response to the documented past and the changing present promises to be interesting. The tone of the International Theological Commission document reveals an attempt to rule out women deacons, but the question is left remarkably open: "It pertains to the ministry of discernment which the Lord established in his church to pronounce authoritatively on this question."
It is becoming increasingly clear that despite the Catholic Church's unwillingness to say yes to the restoration of the female diaconate as an ordained ministry of the Catholic Church, it cannot say no. Prayer for the Ordination of a Woman Deacon O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who replenished with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who did not disdain that your only-begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, did ordain women to be keepers of your holy gates - look down now upon this your servant who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her your Holy Spirit, that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to your glory, and the praise of your Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to you and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen." -Apostolic Constitutions, No. 8 (late fourth century)
--------------------
Phyllis Zagano, Ph.D. is the Aquinas Chair Professor of Catholic Studies at St. Thomas Aquinas College, Sparkill, NY and Senior Research Associate-in-Residence at Hofstra Universty, Hempstead, NY. She is the author of Holy Saturday: An Argument for the Restoration of the Female Diaconate in the Catholic Church (Crossroad, 2000). America (americamagazine.org), Vol. 192 No. 4, February 7, 2005. Copyright © 2005 by America Press, Inc.
Catholic Principles of Pastoral Ecumenism
OVERVIEW OF DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
May a non-Catholic serve as a godparent for a Catholic baptism? May a Catholic be the best man at a non-Catholic wedding? May someone from an Eastern Orthodox church receive communion at a Roman Catholic mass? May a Catholic receive communion at a non-Catholic church?
These and other questions that Catholics often face due to their family, friendships, business and other social relationships are answered in the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism.The directory, published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 1993, updated and expanded the information previously offered in two postconciliar documents: A Directory for the Application of the Second Vatican Council's Decisions on Ecumenism (1967) and its second part, subtitled Ecumenism in Higher Education (1970).
Through the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) the Catholic Church entered a time of self-reflection, probing its identity more deeply and refreshing its dialogue with the world. The fruits of the Council’s labor became immediately evident in the church's worship, but its complete goals included a revision of church law, catechism, and service.
Among the major areas the council pursued was ecumenism. Other churches and ecclesial communities had already entered the arena. The World Council of Churches had formed and some church bodies were already merging. Formerly, the ecumenical strategy of the Catholic Church seemed to have two goals: the conversion of Protestants and an end to the Orthodox schism. The council fathers took a broader look at the ecumenical picture, striking a balance between their convictions already noted in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium, 8) that the church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church" and that "many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines." In doing so, they summoned a deep respect for the personal faith of all. The resulting Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio, November 21, 1964) catapulted the Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement. Its opening words called the restoration of unity one of the principal concerns of the council, and it criticized division among churches as contrary to the will of Christ and a scandal to the world.
The Decree on Ecumenism still captures the heady enthusiasm of the Second Vatican Council. It launched a sweeping agenda for the church by calling for not just the promotion but also the practice of ecumenism. It recognized the distinct concerns issuing from relationships with the Eastern and Western churches separated from the Roman See. By its nature, the document towered with vision, while it abstained from specifics.
The specific working out of the Decree on Ecumenism fell to postconciliar work. The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity accepted the responsibility and set about developing its "Directory for the Application of the Second Vatican Council's Decisions on Ecumenism," published, as indicated above, in two parts in 1967 and 1970.
The first part of the directory (1967) dealt with several practical concerns. These included the creation of diocesan and regional ecumenical commissions, necessary for working out the council's ideals. It also affirmed the validity of baptism administered by ministers of other churches and ecclesial communities. It promoted sharing among churches where possible.
The second part (1970) laid more groundwork. It presented the general principles which undergird ecumenism and then worked out particular norms for ecumenical formation and collaboration, especially in regard to schools and institutions.
That two-part directory served the church well. However, other concurrent developments began to influence ecumenical progress. Most significantly, the Code of Canon Law for the Roman Catholic Church was revised in 1983 and the Code of Oriental Canon Law was published in 1990. It also became evident that the directory had not adequately treated topics like marriages between Catholics and other Christians. A more coherent integration of all this material, it seemed, would better serve the cause of and commitment to ecumenism.
Consequently, in 1985, speaking on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, Pope John Paul II called for the updating of the present ecumenical directory. The secretariat once again assumed the task, and thus began a long process of development and consultation for the generation of the revised document. Before its completion, the directory passsed through several committees, received reactions from episcopal conferences around the world, underwent further refinements with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and finally won the approval of Pope John Paul II. Dated March 25, 1993, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism was promulgated under the auspices of the renamed Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
The finished document contains five sections. It opens with a chapter on the search for Christian unity -- new theological material rooted in the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism and Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Then it treats the organization of the Catholic Church in its service to Christian unity, calling for internal commissions and international cooperation. The third section concerns ecumenical formation in the Catholic Church, an attempt to widen participation in the ecumenical movement. The fourth gathers the practical matters of communion of life and spiritual activity among the baptized. The final section calls for collaboration, dialogue, and common witness to ecumenism.
The excerpt included in this volume of The Liturgy Documents: A Parish Resource draws from the fourth and fifth sections of the directory (92-160; 183-187). There are treated the specific matters that pertain to liturgical preparation and prayer among the Christian churches and ecclesial communities. The first and lengthier part of the excerpt considers prayer and the sacraments. Special consideration goes to baptism and marriage, but in a middle section entitled "Sharing Spiritual Activities and Resources," one finds other substantial concerns: principles for prayer in common, sharing in nonsacramental liturgical worship, and sharing in the sacramental life of the church, especially the eucharist, but also penance and anointing. The shorter, second part of the excerpt concerns the development of common scriptural and liturgical texts.
The sacrament of baptism prompts several concerns, including conditions for its validity and the role of godparents. Regarding validity, the directory makes an assumption in favor of the validity of baptisms in which the minister uses the proper matter and form and has the same intention as the church. This affirmation conceals a change in baptismal practice since the Second Vatican Council. Formerly, the baptism of other Christians was generally considered doubtful; if other Christians desired acceptance into the Catholic church, the priest usually administered a conditional baptism. In fact, so common was this circumstance that the formula for conditional baptisms appeared in the Roman Ritual together with the standard one for hundreds of years. Now the baptisms of other Christians in the main churches and ecclesial communities is presumed to be valid. If any of them desire the full communion of the Catholic Church, they celebrate the rite of reception; the priest who receives them also confirms them. If a conditional baptism must be performed, it is to happen in private (93-95; 99-100).
The question of godparenting across denominational lines has vexed many a Catholic. The directory explains that baptisms happen within a single ecclesial context. Only a person within that church or ecclesial community may function as a godparent, but other baptized Christians may serve as witnesses together with the godparent. The prescription advises Catholic parents to seek a Catholic godparent, even if they wish to include a non-Catholic witness; it also suggests that Catholics may serve as witnesses for the baptisms in other church communities if the host church provides a godparent (98).
In sharing spiritual activities and resources the directory encourages Catholics to make full use of what they share in common with others. Many nonsacramental occasions may draw churches together for prayer; the funeral for a non-Catholic may even happen in a Catholic church (102-121). Catholics may even share buildings and religious objects with non-Catholics, as long as each community's faith is respected. Non-Catholic children in Catholic schools may have access to their own ministers (137-142).
The question of sharing other sacraments requires much more nuance, and the possibilities depend first on whether the non-Catholic individual comes from the churches of the east or west.
The Catholic Church recognizes the sacraments in all eastern churches; it extends its willingness to share the sacraments with them, but not all eastern churches are able to extend the same invitation back (122-128).
The sharing of eucharist, penance, and anointing with ecclesial communities from the Reformation of the sixteenth century is more difficult. For Catholics, the eucharist is a sign of ecclesial communion, which excludes their ordinary participation. However, there are occasions when the sharing of these sacraments "may be permitted or even commended." The directory offers four conditions: "that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own church or ecclesial community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed" (131). Catholics, however, under similar circumstances, may only receive from those churches whose sacraments are considered valid. Hence, the invitation does not work both ways, even in these extraordinary circumstances.
The sense of "communion" at sacramental worship extends also to certain ministries: The reader and homilist at a eucharist should be Catholics. Outside of eucharist they need not be. Those who witness marriages as best man, maid of honor, or other member of the wedding party need not be from the same church as the bride or groom, whether the wedding takes place in a Catholic church or elsewhere (129-136).
Marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics pose pastoral concerns. Even before marriage, couples should discuss the exercise of their faith as part of parochial preparation for marriage. One should be firm in one's own faith and learn about the faith of the partner; still, accepting the partner's faith should not invite indifference about one's own. The pastors of each partner should collaborate before the wedding. The couple is exhorted to pray together (143-149).
Of primary concern in marriage is the faith of the children. The Catholic party is asked to do all in his or her power to raise the children in the Catholic faith, beginning with baptism. The non-Catholic party is to be informed, but is not asked to assent or sign anything. Sometimes the Catholic party cannot fulfill his or her intentions. If he or she wishes to share the Catholic faith with the children but fails in efforts to do so due to the religious freedom and conscience of the other parent, he or she incurs no canonical censure (150-151).
The ceremony should affirm the significance of the sacrament. Marriages between Catholics and Orthodox should stress what the faiths share in common. A Catholic who wishes to marry a non-Catholic is still bound by the canonical form of marriage, but may obtain a dispensation for various reasons, including "the maintaining of family harmony, obtaining parental consent to the marriage, the recognition of the particular religious commitment of the non-Catholic partner or his/her blood relationship with a minister of another church or ecclesial community." Still, one public ceremony is required; a couple may not give consent twice. The Catholic minister may join or be joined by the minister of another community at the wedding; the visiting minister may recite a prayer, proclaim a reading, offer an exhortation, or give a blessing. The directory states that the wedding between a Catholic and a person from another church or ecclesial community will ordinarily not take place within the context of a eucharist. If the non-Catholic desires communion at the wedding, the norms in #131 still apply within the context of the wedding (152-160). The bishops' conference of South Africa notably clarified these permissions after the directory was published.
The excerpt closes with two parts of the closing section: common bible work and common liturgical texts. Since the directory calls on Christians to seek occasions for common prayer, it also encourages the development of biblical and liturgical texts which many ecclesial communities might hold in common (183-187).
In parts of the world where Catholics are continually drawn into conversation and commerce with those of other beliefs, they find the experience both rich and challenging. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism aims to help the average Catholic enter that world strong in faith yet committed to the cause of ecumenism.
This article first appeared in The Liturgy Documents Volume Two: A Parish Resource. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1999.
May a non-Catholic serve as a godparent for a Catholic baptism? May a Catholic be the best man at a non-Catholic wedding? May someone from an Eastern Orthodox church receive communion at a Roman Catholic mass? May a Catholic receive communion at a non-Catholic church?
These and other questions that Catholics often face due to their family, friendships, business and other social relationships are answered in the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism.The directory, published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 1993, updated and expanded the information previously offered in two postconciliar documents: A Directory for the Application of the Second Vatican Council's Decisions on Ecumenism (1967) and its second part, subtitled Ecumenism in Higher Education (1970).
Through the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) the Catholic Church entered a time of self-reflection, probing its identity more deeply and refreshing its dialogue with the world. The fruits of the Council’s labor became immediately evident in the church's worship, but its complete goals included a revision of church law, catechism, and service.
Among the major areas the council pursued was ecumenism. Other churches and ecclesial communities had already entered the arena. The World Council of Churches had formed and some church bodies were already merging. Formerly, the ecumenical strategy of the Catholic Church seemed to have two goals: the conversion of Protestants and an end to the Orthodox schism. The council fathers took a broader look at the ecumenical picture, striking a balance between their convictions already noted in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium, 8) that the church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church" and that "many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines." In doing so, they summoned a deep respect for the personal faith of all. The resulting Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio, November 21, 1964) catapulted the Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement. Its opening words called the restoration of unity one of the principal concerns of the council, and it criticized division among churches as contrary to the will of Christ and a scandal to the world.
The Decree on Ecumenism still captures the heady enthusiasm of the Second Vatican Council. It launched a sweeping agenda for the church by calling for not just the promotion but also the practice of ecumenism. It recognized the distinct concerns issuing from relationships with the Eastern and Western churches separated from the Roman See. By its nature, the document towered with vision, while it abstained from specifics.
The specific working out of the Decree on Ecumenism fell to postconciliar work. The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity accepted the responsibility and set about developing its "Directory for the Application of the Second Vatican Council's Decisions on Ecumenism," published, as indicated above, in two parts in 1967 and 1970.
The first part of the directory (1967) dealt with several practical concerns. These included the creation of diocesan and regional ecumenical commissions, necessary for working out the council's ideals. It also affirmed the validity of baptism administered by ministers of other churches and ecclesial communities. It promoted sharing among churches where possible.
The second part (1970) laid more groundwork. It presented the general principles which undergird ecumenism and then worked out particular norms for ecumenical formation and collaboration, especially in regard to schools and institutions.
That two-part directory served the church well. However, other concurrent developments began to influence ecumenical progress. Most significantly, the Code of Canon Law for the Roman Catholic Church was revised in 1983 and the Code of Oriental Canon Law was published in 1990. It also became evident that the directory had not adequately treated topics like marriages between Catholics and other Christians. A more coherent integration of all this material, it seemed, would better serve the cause of and commitment to ecumenism.
Consequently, in 1985, speaking on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, Pope John Paul II called for the updating of the present ecumenical directory. The secretariat once again assumed the task, and thus began a long process of development and consultation for the generation of the revised document. Before its completion, the directory passsed through several committees, received reactions from episcopal conferences around the world, underwent further refinements with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and finally won the approval of Pope John Paul II. Dated March 25, 1993, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism was promulgated under the auspices of the renamed Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
The finished document contains five sections. It opens with a chapter on the search for Christian unity -- new theological material rooted in the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism and Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Then it treats the organization of the Catholic Church in its service to Christian unity, calling for internal commissions and international cooperation. The third section concerns ecumenical formation in the Catholic Church, an attempt to widen participation in the ecumenical movement. The fourth gathers the practical matters of communion of life and spiritual activity among the baptized. The final section calls for collaboration, dialogue, and common witness to ecumenism.
The excerpt included in this volume of The Liturgy Documents: A Parish Resource draws from the fourth and fifth sections of the directory (92-160; 183-187). There are treated the specific matters that pertain to liturgical preparation and prayer among the Christian churches and ecclesial communities. The first and lengthier part of the excerpt considers prayer and the sacraments. Special consideration goes to baptism and marriage, but in a middle section entitled "Sharing Spiritual Activities and Resources," one finds other substantial concerns: principles for prayer in common, sharing in nonsacramental liturgical worship, and sharing in the sacramental life of the church, especially the eucharist, but also penance and anointing. The shorter, second part of the excerpt concerns the development of common scriptural and liturgical texts.
The sacrament of baptism prompts several concerns, including conditions for its validity and the role of godparents. Regarding validity, the directory makes an assumption in favor of the validity of baptisms in which the minister uses the proper matter and form and has the same intention as the church. This affirmation conceals a change in baptismal practice since the Second Vatican Council. Formerly, the baptism of other Christians was generally considered doubtful; if other Christians desired acceptance into the Catholic church, the priest usually administered a conditional baptism. In fact, so common was this circumstance that the formula for conditional baptisms appeared in the Roman Ritual together with the standard one for hundreds of years. Now the baptisms of other Christians in the main churches and ecclesial communities is presumed to be valid. If any of them desire the full communion of the Catholic Church, they celebrate the rite of reception; the priest who receives them also confirms them. If a conditional baptism must be performed, it is to happen in private (93-95; 99-100).
The question of godparenting across denominational lines has vexed many a Catholic. The directory explains that baptisms happen within a single ecclesial context. Only a person within that church or ecclesial community may function as a godparent, but other baptized Christians may serve as witnesses together with the godparent. The prescription advises Catholic parents to seek a Catholic godparent, even if they wish to include a non-Catholic witness; it also suggests that Catholics may serve as witnesses for the baptisms in other church communities if the host church provides a godparent (98).
In sharing spiritual activities and resources the directory encourages Catholics to make full use of what they share in common with others. Many nonsacramental occasions may draw churches together for prayer; the funeral for a non-Catholic may even happen in a Catholic church (102-121). Catholics may even share buildings and religious objects with non-Catholics, as long as each community's faith is respected. Non-Catholic children in Catholic schools may have access to their own ministers (137-142).
The question of sharing other sacraments requires much more nuance, and the possibilities depend first on whether the non-Catholic individual comes from the churches of the east or west.
The Catholic Church recognizes the sacraments in all eastern churches; it extends its willingness to share the sacraments with them, but not all eastern churches are able to extend the same invitation back (122-128).
The sharing of eucharist, penance, and anointing with ecclesial communities from the Reformation of the sixteenth century is more difficult. For Catholics, the eucharist is a sign of ecclesial communion, which excludes their ordinary participation. However, there are occasions when the sharing of these sacraments "may be permitted or even commended." The directory offers four conditions: "that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own church or ecclesial community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed" (131). Catholics, however, under similar circumstances, may only receive from those churches whose sacraments are considered valid. Hence, the invitation does not work both ways, even in these extraordinary circumstances.
The sense of "communion" at sacramental worship extends also to certain ministries: The reader and homilist at a eucharist should be Catholics. Outside of eucharist they need not be. Those who witness marriages as best man, maid of honor, or other member of the wedding party need not be from the same church as the bride or groom, whether the wedding takes place in a Catholic church or elsewhere (129-136).
Marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics pose pastoral concerns. Even before marriage, couples should discuss the exercise of their faith as part of parochial preparation for marriage. One should be firm in one's own faith and learn about the faith of the partner; still, accepting the partner's faith should not invite indifference about one's own. The pastors of each partner should collaborate before the wedding. The couple is exhorted to pray together (143-149).
Of primary concern in marriage is the faith of the children. The Catholic party is asked to do all in his or her power to raise the children in the Catholic faith, beginning with baptism. The non-Catholic party is to be informed, but is not asked to assent or sign anything. Sometimes the Catholic party cannot fulfill his or her intentions. If he or she wishes to share the Catholic faith with the children but fails in efforts to do so due to the religious freedom and conscience of the other parent, he or she incurs no canonical censure (150-151).
The ceremony should affirm the significance of the sacrament. Marriages between Catholics and Orthodox should stress what the faiths share in common. A Catholic who wishes to marry a non-Catholic is still bound by the canonical form of marriage, but may obtain a dispensation for various reasons, including "the maintaining of family harmony, obtaining parental consent to the marriage, the recognition of the particular religious commitment of the non-Catholic partner or his/her blood relationship with a minister of another church or ecclesial community." Still, one public ceremony is required; a couple may not give consent twice. The Catholic minister may join or be joined by the minister of another community at the wedding; the visiting minister may recite a prayer, proclaim a reading, offer an exhortation, or give a blessing. The directory states that the wedding between a Catholic and a person from another church or ecclesial community will ordinarily not take place within the context of a eucharist. If the non-Catholic desires communion at the wedding, the norms in #131 still apply within the context of the wedding (152-160). The bishops' conference of South Africa notably clarified these permissions after the directory was published.
The excerpt closes with two parts of the closing section: common bible work and common liturgical texts. Since the directory calls on Christians to seek occasions for common prayer, it also encourages the development of biblical and liturgical texts which many ecclesial communities might hold in common (183-187).
In parts of the world where Catholics are continually drawn into conversation and commerce with those of other beliefs, they find the experience both rich and challenging. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism aims to help the average Catholic enter that world strong in faith yet committed to the cause of ecumenism.
This article first appeared in The Liturgy Documents Volume Two: A Parish Resource. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1999.
Catholic-Jewish Dialogue in the Palm Beaches
On June 24th, members of the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County and the Diocese of Palm Beach met at the Pastoral Center in Palm Beach Gardens to pray together, get better acquainted, break bread together, and discuss issues of importance.
Bishop Barbarito
Bishop Gerald M. Barbarito, D.D., bishop of Palm Beach greeted Rabbi Richard Chapin of Temple Israel, West Palm Beach, Mr. Jonathan Gilbert, Chairman of the Jewish Federation, and Dr. Luis Fleishman, Executive Director of the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County along with diocesan representatives Deacon Dennis Demes and Mrs. Lynn Powell of the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations, Mr. Sandi Martinez, Director of the Tribunal,and Mr. Erik Vagenius, Director of the Substance Addiction ministry.
Cordial exchanges were followed by a discussion of the issues surrounding immigration. Consensus was reached that the United States is in need of comprehensive immigration reform. The panel also agreed that border security is a rightful concern of all governments and needs to be addressed in the United States. "Border security not only protects the United States itself, but individual groups within it" said Dr. Fleischman. Deacon Demes indicated that this was consistent with the call from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Bishops of Mexico in their pastoral Strangers no Longer; Together on the Journey of Hope. This document focused on the larger question of poverty calling on an international effort to create conditions in which people will not have to leave their homelands to migrate elsewhere in desperation for survival. The document also focused on backlogs of visa applications for family visitation, an issue which the discussion at the Pastoral Center did not specifically address. The Bishops recognized a value and need of the labor which migrants provide and Mr. Jonathan Gilbert acknowledged the same here in Palm beach County. The discussion called for broad based legislation to address those who are in the United States and contributing to its national welfare and a continuation of due process.
Rabbi Chapin called for the development of more opportunities for Catholics and Jews to come together in prayer and other forms of fellowship. Deacon Demes agreed to speak to representatives at Catholic Charities who are well versed in immigration law and render assistance to the needy. Follow-up discussions on this and other issues are anticipated and embraced.
Bishop Barbarito
Bishop Gerald M. Barbarito, D.D., bishop of Palm Beach greeted Rabbi Richard Chapin of Temple Israel, West Palm Beach, Mr. Jonathan Gilbert, Chairman of the Jewish Federation, and Dr. Luis Fleishman, Executive Director of the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County along with diocesan representatives Deacon Dennis Demes and Mrs. Lynn Powell of the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations, Mr. Sandi Martinez, Director of the Tribunal,and Mr. Erik Vagenius, Director of the Substance Addiction ministry.
Cordial exchanges were followed by a discussion of the issues surrounding immigration. Consensus was reached that the United States is in need of comprehensive immigration reform. The panel also agreed that border security is a rightful concern of all governments and needs to be addressed in the United States. "Border security not only protects the United States itself, but individual groups within it" said Dr. Fleischman. Deacon Demes indicated that this was consistent with the call from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Bishops of Mexico in their pastoral Strangers no Longer; Together on the Journey of Hope. This document focused on the larger question of poverty calling on an international effort to create conditions in which people will not have to leave their homelands to migrate elsewhere in desperation for survival. The document also focused on backlogs of visa applications for family visitation, an issue which the discussion at the Pastoral Center did not specifically address. The Bishops recognized a value and need of the labor which migrants provide and Mr. Jonathan Gilbert acknowledged the same here in Palm beach County. The discussion called for broad based legislation to address those who are in the United States and contributing to its national welfare and a continuation of due process.
Rabbi Chapin called for the development of more opportunities for Catholics and Jews to come together in prayer and other forms of fellowship. Deacon Demes agreed to speak to representatives at Catholic Charities who are well versed in immigration law and render assistance to the needy. Follow-up discussions on this and other issues are anticipated and embraced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)