| In his Christmas address to the Roman Curia in 2005 (the 40th anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council), Pope Benedict reflected on the reason for the tensions in the Roman Catholic Church which surrounded the memory and meaning of the Council.
He said that “two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion; the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.
“On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”
When the Apostolic Constitution is published, I hope we shall ask the following questions of it. Bear in mind that, mutatis mutandis, these must be asked equally of the proposals of the revision committee.
Do these proposals truly build on ARCIC? Indeed, are the ARCIC agreed statements themselves, together with the principles enunciated in the IARCCUM report Growing Together in Unity and Mission (2007), “the solid ground” the Archbishop of Canterbury has claimed in his letter to the Bishops of the Church of England and the Primates of the Anglican Communion?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Note, issued on Tuesday of last week, was more coy, simply stating that “for many in both communions, the ARCIC statements provided a vehicle in which a common expression of faith could be recognised.”
Admittedly, the Note went on to say: “It is in this framework that this new provision should be seen,” but it is less than a ringing endorsement of ARCIC. I may be proved wrong, of course, but from my perspective, this is not, at first glance, the harvesting of the fruits of ARCIC for which I had hoped. But then, we Anglican beggars may not be in a position to be choosers.
Let me reduce the above to two simple questions:
1) Is this in any sense an ecclesial proposal? Or is it, rather, an opportunity for individual Anglicans, possibly organised in groups?
2) Is there a genuine honouring of Anglican ecclesial experience, or simply a recognition of “some elements” of Anglican patrimony?
As things stand, I really do want to wait and see. The establishment of the proposed Ordinariates may well allow the flowering of some authentic Anglican ecclesial identity in the full communion of the Catholic Church.
I hope it will. That, after all is what we have longed, prayed, and worked for, for so long. That is the ultimate goal of the whole ARCIC and IARCCUM processes. I certainly do not want to be in any way grudging about what is a remarkable new step for the Vatican. And it is remarkable.
I would, however, like to be assured that these arrangements have a permanency about them — not necessarily for ever, of course, because the Church is always moving on — but at least for the foreseeable future. This is why issues about who will be the chief pastors of the Ordinariates, how priests will be formed, and so on, will be important issues for clarification.
I want to return to the Holy Father’s helpful contrast between a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” and a “hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in the continuity . . . of the Church”. Admittedly, he used this as a way of interpreting Vatican II, but I would like to see it as a contribution to an updating of Newman’s important work on the criteria for the development of doctrine, and thus a way of assessing new movements and ideas in the Church.
If we believe that the Holy Spirit consistently, patiently, and lovingly deepens our understanding of revelation, we should always be looking for “reform . . . renewal in continuity” in a way that enables divided Churches and ecclesial communities to be more recognisable to each other.
That does not answer all the difficult questions, but it certainly gives us a clear principle with which to interrogate any proposed developments within the Church, both in the lives of particular Churches and in the wider ecumenical frame.
From Rome, we would be grateful for ongoing discussions about the proposed Ordinariates, to be able to be assured that they will provide a real opportunity for an ecclesial existence, as distinct from a museum of nostalgic items. Until we see the Apostolic Constitution, it will not be possible to ask more precise questions.
To the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, we would be grateful for clearer action to support orthodox Anglicans in provinces throughout the world, including those who are hanging on at great personal cost within the Episcopal Church in the USA, and those who have already been driven to make alternative arrangements. Maybe the Covenant will help. It may be too little, too late, but it has been described as “the only game in town”.
We also want to know whether the Church of England is serious about not losing its traditional Catholic voice. Here, whatever eventually results from the revision committee’s work must not be a kind of tribal reserve for those who do not like this or that current trend.
Here, again, the issue is authentic church life, where people, priests, and bishops together may live the faith that comes to us from Jesus Christ through his apostles and the Church throughout the ages, and is still the only basis for Christian unity.
I am grateful both to the revision committee and the Holy See for having so significantly moved the discussion forward. May God have mercy on us all in the challenging times that lie ahead.
Dr Hind is the Bishop of Chichester and chairman of the Faith and Order Advisory Group of the Church of England. He is a Vice-Moderator of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. This is an edited extract from his address to Forward in Faith last Saturday. |
back to Comment
previous story
|
next story 
%239%23.jpg)
