The Future of Contra Protestant Apologetics

Recently on social media I saw a certain Catholic apologist trying to sell off some of his books online in a special sale. He was offering significant discounts, offering multiple books at cuts of 50% or more. Most of the books had to do with contra Protestant apologetics, the sorta stuff that made Catholic Answers famous back in the 1990s.  In order to offer books at that kind of rate, he must have either been hurting for money, or simply wanting to offload titles that weren't selling anymore.

I'm betting it was the latter, because judging from the responses on the thread, there was not a lot of traction on the sale. But what was really interesting were several comments people made about the content of such works. More than one person said, "Apologetics to Protestants is not my area of focus right now", or "I'm not interested in that currently"; others echoed the sentiment. It was a kind of "we've got bigger fish to fry" sort of response.

I am not going to mention the apologist. This isn't really about him anyway; plus he has a Beetlejuice-sort of way of showing up whenever his name is mentioned. And I of all people know what it's like to be an author wanting to offload books. What I am really interested in is the attitude of the people on the thread who essentially said that Catholic apologetics to Protestants was simply not on their radar at the moment.

Earlier this year I wrote a piece entitled "Bad Liturgies Cripple Evangelism" (USC, July 2018). The premise of that article was that the poor quality of the liturgy in most Catholic parishes offers nothing to pique the interest of non-Catholics into wanting to learn about the faith. We could posit a corollary principle: if bad liturgy cripples the evangelical effect of the Mass, the Church herself being in a state of chaos diminishes the impulse Catholics experience for bringing others into it. 

I do not believe this is because such Catholics are ashamed of the Church or do not desire the salvation of others or anything like that; rather, I think it has to do with the fact that their energies and attention are taken up by what is going on inside the Church. In other words, Catholics' natural impulse is to put the fire out inside their own home before they invite others inside.

What will the future of contra Protestant apologetics be? My hunch is it is diminishing, and apologists who have made their careers debunking Protestantism will find themselves more and more irrelevant. 

The main reason for this is simply that the essential divisions within Christianity are no longer confessional. It used to be that Christianity was divided up into several confessions and that the members of each confession were presumed to be faithful at least to the tenets of their own confession. A man was a Baptist because he affirmed the Baptist confession and denied those that were at odds with his. And of course a Catholic was a Catholic because he affirmed the teachings of the Catholic faith. To be sure, the Baptist or the Catholic may have been born into these communities, but did not detract from the expectation that one who belonged to a certain confession actually professed it.

In that sort of climate, it was easy for confessions to dispute with one another. Persons professing some sort of formulaic creed can argue with others who profess a different creed because they had the common ground of both professing some creed. "Look here, you and I both acknowledge Christians live by a creed. Your creed is different than mine. Let's argue about whose is correct." It was in this atmosphere that Catholic apologetics contra Protestantism could flourish. 

But the situation has changed drastically. The contemporary division within global Christianity is not creed vs. creed, but people who profess a creed vs. people who have no creed—those whose faith has a doctrinal skeleton and those whose faith has no structure at all, but is a kind of gelatinous mass. This division transcends all forms of Christianity. Across the Catholic Church, the world of the Orthodox, and the Protestant confessions there is a profound de facto schism between those who believe Christianity has an objective, definable form whose boundaries are delineated by particular doctrines and, on the other hand, those who believe Christianity to be essentially whatever its adherents wish it to be at any given time.

In this atmosphere, creed vs. creed apologetics no longer has the weight it once did when most sincere Christians of any stripe are fighting bitterly simply to affirm the existence of any creed within their respective communities.

This is not to say contra Protestant apologetics will go away. It will always have a place, but it will probably give ground to other forms of apologetics which are not textual and doctrinal but rather more about defending an entire way of viewing religious belief in general. It will be about conflicting worldviews, not about the right interpretation of biblical texts. At least in the near future.

It is possible, of course, as Christians who are faithful to their own confessions fight the doctrinal devolution that is dissolving the creeds of Christendom, that Catholics and Protestants may find themselves arguing more or less along the same lines. The Protestant apologist arguing for the existence of revealed truth is going to be making more or less a similar argument to the Catholic apologist who does the same—the content of that revealed truth and how it is transmitted are a different matter, of course. But it is possible that in making arguing for the existence of confessional religion, Catholics and Protestants unwittingly become allies and many of the latter return home to the former. 

This is similar to how the Anglicans of the 19th century British Oxford Movement, in arguing against low church Anglicanism, actually argued themselves back into the Catholic Church because they realized the arguments they made against low church Anglicanism also undermined Anglicanism itself. Thus, contemporary Protestants compelled to argue for confessional Christianity may find their arguments undermine the existence of their own confessions and end up returning to the Catholic Church as a result.

Regardless of what may come, one thing is certain: it is not the 1980s and 1990s anymore. The days of the supremacy of Catholicism and Fundamentalism,  Surprised by Truth and similar such works is rapidly fading. The average Catholic, if he is faithful, is much more concerned with the corruption in the episcopate, the homosexual clerical scandals, the erosion of the liturgy. and the auto-demolition of the Church coming from the Vatican than he is about convincing a Protestant about the canonicity of the Book of Tobit. What logical reason does he have to argue with a Protestant about the Church's doctrines just to bring said Protestant into a Church whose leaders are overthrowing the very doctrines the apologist argued in favor of?

Please understand I am not saying the Great Commission is no longer valid or that we ought not to witness to Protestants; I am saying that the current situation it makes it difficult to prioritize such apologetics. This is why, I think, this apologist attempting to sell contra Protestant books found that astute Catholics were simply not interested in that right now, nor will they be until the fire in our own house has been extinguished.

"It is time for judgment to begin with the household of God." ~1 Peter 4:17

Follow this blog on Facebook!

Francis and Kirill: Smoke and Mirrors

Pope Francis has concluded his historic meeting with Patriach Kirill of Moscow and All Russia in Cuba this past week. Their Joint Declaration calls for Catholic and Russian Orthodox to stand together in support of persecuted Christians, and also to give a joint witness in favor of life and traditional marriage.

There are many good things in this document, but paragraphs 24 and 25 in particular caught my attention vis-a-vis their implications for ecumenism. Here are the paragraphs in question:

24. Orthodox and Catholics are united not only by the shared Tradition of the Church of the first millennium, but also by the mission to preach the Gospel of Christ in the world today. This mission entails mutual respect for members of the Christian communities and excludes any form of proselytism.

We are not competitors but brothers, and this concept must guide all our mutual actions as well as those directed to the outside world. We urge Catholics and Orthodox in all countries to learn to live together in peace and love, and to be “in harmony with one another” (Rm 15:5). Consequently, it cannot be accepted that disloyal means be used to incite believers to pass from one Church to another, denying them their religious freedom and their traditions. We are called upon to put into practice the precept of the apostle Paul: “Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another's foundation” (Rm 15:20).

25. It is our hope that our meeting may also contribute to reconciliation wherever tensions exist between Greek Catholics and Orthodox. It is today clear that the past method of “uniatism”, understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, is not the way to re–establish unity. Nonetheless, the ecclesial communities which emerged in these historical circumstances have the right to exist and to undertake all that is necessary to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful, while seeking to live in peace with their neighbours. Orthodox and Greek Catholics are in need of reconciliation and of mutually acceptable forms of co–existence.

The first two paragraphs contain the standard warnings against "proselytism." While the document limits "proselytism" to only those means of conversion which use "disloyal means" to convert people, we have seen how the word "proselytism" is infused with ambiguity in modern Vatican statements. While its usage always leaves room for people to claim it means only dishonest or immoral means to win converts - as in the above citation - we also know that for Pope Francis and many theologians "proselytism" is equated with conversion pure and simple, for example, an address of Francis in Argentine in 2013 where the pope condemned proselytism and said, "Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no!", or when he said in Korea "with my identity and my empathy, my openness, I walk with the other. I don’t try to make him come over to me, I don’t proselytize" (source), where to "proselytize" is equated with getting the other to "come over"; i.e., convert. For more on the dishonest manner in which the word "proselytize" is used in contemporary documents, see the USC article "Proselytism and Conversion."

The most interesting statement, however, is found in paragraph 25 where the pope and patriarch reject what is called "uniatism." What is uniatism, and why is it categorically rejected?

Historically, uniatism was a means of reconciling churches of the Eastern Orthodox communion with Rome. This was done by usually establishing juridical and canonical norms particular to these communions that allowed them to retain some degree of cultural distinction in return for their recognition of the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. This arrangement brought about ecclesial unity - hence their designation as "Uniate" churches. 

There are a total of 19 Uniate Churches with 253 bishops governing over 18 million worldwide. Some of these are very small, like the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church (3,800 adherents) and the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church (2,400), while others are extremely large, like the Melkites and the Syro-Malankar rite, which each have near a million. The largest Uniate Church is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which has 44 bishops spread over 31 eparchies governing over 5 million Ukrainian Catholics. With 18 million adherents, the Uniate churches are by no means insignificant. It is wonderful that the new Joint Declaration concedes these 18 million Catholics "the right to exist."

By the way, since uniatism is only a method for reconciling Orthodox to Rome (and not for converting Catholics to the Orthodox), this agreement to reject uniatism is very one-sided against the Catholic Church. The Russians give absolutely no ground; the Russian Orthodox have always hated the Uniate Churches and viewed them as traitors. Thus the Joint Declaration is essentially the Catholic Church adopting the Russian Orthodox perspective on the Uniate Churches.

It is mind-boggling that uniatism is rejected as a model for reconciliation, since uniatism has historically been the single most successful method of reconciling the Orthodox. Why would the Church reject what has historically been the best tool in her chest for reconciling the orthodox? Because to do so implicitly means the uniate churches must break away from the Orthodox communion, and this is forbidden in the new world of ecumenism. This has been the Church's implicit position since the Ostpolitik of the Second Vatican Council, and was formalized in the Balamand Declaration of 1993. Please see our article on the Balamand Conference for the background of this declaration.

What this ultimately means is that, despite the show of unity between Francis and Kirill, this declaration brings us absolutely no closer to any sort of reunion between Rome and Moscow. Indeed, any such reunion is explicitly repudiated, as in paragraph 24 the Declaration bizarrely quotes Romans 15:20 out of context ("Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another's foundation”) to make the point that Rome is not seeking converts from Moscow. It is astonishing that Francis' cites St. Paul in this manner; the other "foundations" St. Paul is speaking of are other Christian churches. Let us not forget that, from the Catholic perspective, the Russian Orthodox are schismatics. There is no precedent in Catholic ecclesiology for viewing schismatic churches as other "foundations" upon which we cannot build.

More smoke and mirrors here.

Müller Explanation Fails

As we wrap up 2015 and move into the fourth full year of the Franciscan pontificate, we are offered a perfect example of why attempts to put an orthodox spin on some of Pope Francis' troubling statements are so disappointing.

Case in point: In November, 2015, the pope was approached by a Lutheran woman who was married to a Catholic man. She stated that she and her husband "greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord’s Supper together" and asked "What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?" 

In his characteristic long winded, extempore manner, the pope said:

"It’s a problem each must answer, but a pastor-friend once told me: “We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present. You all believe that the Lord is present. And so what’s the difference?” — “Eh, there are explanations, interpretations.” Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism. “One faith, one baptism, one Lord.” This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there. I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more."

There was much more to this statement, including some very troubling ecclesiology, but here was the crux of the matter - Francis essentially states that Lutherans' and Catholics' similar baptism provides a sufficient level of communion for the two to receive the Eucharist together, provided that one has "talked to the Lord" in good conscience and is comfortable to "go forward" - i.e., to receive Holy Communion. One Peter Five has a decent write up of the whole encounter, along with a complete text of Francis' comments and even video to get the situational context.

So, Francis characteristically says something that sounds confusing at best and heterodox at worst - and I want to remind everyone, this is not a "spin" that some media outlet put on his words. This is the actual text of the pope's statement, before any media outlet or huckster got to it.

In fact, the only real spin has come from those trying to explain Francis' comments in continuity with tradition. I am referring primarily to Cardinal Gerhard Müller's well-intentioned by unsatisfying attempt to square the papal circle here. In a statement "clarifying" what Pope Francis "really meant", Cardinal Müller resorted to the tired old defense that the pope was simply "misunderstood."

In an article published in the National Catholic Register in December, 2015, Edward Pentin reports on Cardinal Müller's explanation of the pope's comments. According to Pentin, Müller says that the pope did not suggest intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics was possible. Why didn't the pope suggest this? Here is Gerhard Müller's full comment on why the pope was misunderstood:

“That [the Pope’s visit to the Lutheran church] was a sign of hope, that the day would come when full unity of the visible Church in the profession of faith, of the sacramental signs of salvation and the episcopal constitution with the Pope as her head would be reached. Misunderstandings come up again and again because of a failure to take account of the fact that, unfortunately, there is actually a different understanding of the Church between Catholics and Protestants, and these differences are not only theological-conceptual, but of a confessional nature. But the most important object of ecumenical dialogue, which does not want to stick with the status quo (and use "colorful and nice" talk), is rather to lead the ecumenical movement towards its goal, namely the visible and institutional unity of the Church.”

If you missed the part where Müller actually addressed the pope's comments, you're not alone. Müller did not address Francis' troubling comments at all. He merely said there had been a "misunderstanding" due to a "failure to take into account" that Lutherans and Catholics believe differently. Pope Franics' theology of baptism as a ground for intercommunion was not addressed. His ambiguously problematic statement "Talk to the Lord and then go forward" was not addressed. His dismissal of the differences in Protestant and Catholic sacramental theology as "explanations" and "interpretations" was not addressed. His very radical statement that the shared Eucharist is not the goal of ecumenism but the means of getting there was not addressed. Essentially, Müller did not address or explain any of the pope's comments. He merely stated they were misunderstood without explaining how, and then reminded us that there are differences between Protestants and Catholics, without addressing why the pope is apparently dismissive of these differences.

In other words, Müller's explanation is no explanation at all. And that's fine; it's really not his job to go around cleaning up the pope's messes. Let Fr. Lombardi do that. But the problem is that certain Catholics will take this as if it were an explanation. When this issue of Luther-Catholic intercommunion is brought up again, neo-Catholics will retort that "the Vatican" had "clarified" the pope's statements and that it was all a "misunderstanding", and that therefore there is nothing to question.

A misunderstanding? How? Based on what? There mere fact Fr. Lombardi or Cardinal Müller or the Vatican or anyone else says there is a misunderstanding does not mean there is one. Any apologist for these sorts of comments - anyone who says the pope was "misunderstood" - is obliged to explain why and how he was misunderstood. Simply stating there was a misunderstanding does not in itself clarify anything unless you are going to explain what the pope's words actually meant. What did the pope actually mean when he said "Talk to the Lord and then go forward"?

And this neo-Catholics are unwilling to do - at least honestly - because the clear context of his words imply that he was telling Lutherans they could receive communion in a Catholic Church so long as they were alright with it in their conscience. There's no way an honest reading of his statements in context could yield any other interpretation.

Next time you question something the pope said, and you are told that it was simply a "misunderstanding" or that someone had "cleared it up", you really need to dig into it, because in many cases I'd be willing to bet nothing at all was cleared up. Sometimes I think the response to a papal gaffe is to simply say "You didn't hear that", and the papalatrous Catholic media take that alone as a sufficient explanation.

Ecumenism is the Church's Bad Dream

With the pope's much publicized trip to the Holy Land coming to an end, I thought it appropriate to look at the Common Declaration of Pope Francis and the Patriarch Bartholomew. The meeting between the two prelates was, after all, the putative reason for the trip, as it was meant to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the historic meeting between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. Many pundits are really hyping the importance of this meeting and the Common Declaration as a great step forward in the search for Catholic-Orthodox unity. It is epic! It is historic! A giant leap towards full reunion! The full text of the Common Declaration can found here.

In my opinion, however, this declaration is much ado about nothing.

There are two things to be considered: First, issues raised by the text itself, and second, broader obstacles to Catholic-Orthodox unity that remain unresolved. Let us look first at the text of the Declaration, which begins with the Pope unfortunately lending credibility to a historical farce that the Orthodox have been trying to push for centuries - the lie that the See of Constantinople was founded by the Apostle Andrew:

"Our meeting, another encounter of the Bishops of the Churches of Rome and Constantinople founded respectively by the two Brothers the Apostles Peter and Andrew, is a source of profound spiritual joy for us" [Common Declaration, 1].

The assertion that St. Andrew founded the Church of Constantinople is a historical fabrication that the Orthodox began asserting in the fifth century to contest the claims of the papacy, the thinking being that since Andrew was called before Peter by our Lord, a Church founded by Andrew could have a claim to some sort of preeminence. At any rate the West has never accepted this claim. Nor do early Eastern Fathers know anything about it. Eusebius of Caesarea places Andrew's apostolic activity in Scythia and St. Gregory Nazianzus states it was Epirus. Surely if anyone had a motive for trying to bolster the authority of Constantinople it would be Eusebius, the court historian of Constantine, the builder of the New Rome. Yet Eusebius says nothing of St. Andrew founding the Church at Constantinople for the simple reason that this fable had not been invented yet. It was the translation of the relics of Andrew to Constantinople in 357 that probably occasioned the legend that he in fact founded that Church, something the West has never acknowledged. It is greatly to be regretted that Pope Francis gives credence to this historical fiction - this fiction which every serious historian knows to be a fabrication. It would be as silly as Patriarch Bartholomew affirming the Donation of Constantine - something that would be both historically false and damaging to traditional Orthodox claims.

That's just a pet peeve. Let's really dig in to this. The Declaration continues:

"Our fraternal encounter today is a new and necessary step on the journey towards the unity to which only the Holy Spirit can lead us, that of communion in legitimate diversity...While fully aware of not having reached the goal of full communion, today we confirm our commitment to continue walking together towards the unity for which Christ our Lord prayed to the Father so “that all may be one” [ibid., 2]

We all agree and applaud that talking to the Orthodox for the purpose of bringing about unity is a good thing. But what does this unity look like concretely? How do we get there? Are we closer now than we were fifty years ago when Paul VI met Athenagoras? The appeal of the concept of 'unity' is in its vagueness, but let us recall that unity is not a vague thing - it is a very particular ecclesiological concept that brings forth a concrete canonical reality. As in all these ecumenical meetings, the concept of unity is discussed a lot, but what it looks like or how to get there is never discussed. It is as if we are perpetually standing on the shore talking about sailing somewhere but never getting on the ship - or like one of those bad dreams you have where you know you need to get somewhere in a certain time but can't bring yourself to actually get moving. You know you're supposed to be leaving; you can feel it, you are struggling to get you act together, but somehow you never move - never leave.

Modern ecumenism is like the Catholic Church's bad dream. We will see later what underlies this concept.

"This is no mere theoretical exercise, but an exercise in truth and love that demands an ever deeper knowledge of each other’s traditions in order to understand them and to learn from them. Thus we affirm once again that the theological dialogue does not seek a theological lowest common denominator on which to reach a compromise, but is rather about deepening one’s grasp of the whole truth that Christ has given to his Church, a truth that we never cease to understand better as we follow the Holy Spirit’s promptings. Hence, we affirm together that our faithfulness to the Lord demands fraternal encounter and true dialogue. Such a common pursuit does not lead us away from the truth; rather, through an exchange of gifts, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it will lead us into all truth (cf. Jn 16:13)." [ibid., 4]

Indeed, this is "no mere theoretical exercise"; in fact, it is neither "theoretical", nor an "exercise." If it were theoretical, we would be seeing concrete proposals of what unity could look like; of course there's nothing that specific in the Declaration. If it were exercise, we would expect some sort of work or labor towards real reconciliation; but we see neither. These are just platitudes. Indeed, in the modern Church such ecumenical meetings can yield little else; having abandoned the concept of full, formal return to Rome whilst simultaneously denying that we are working towards a mere "lowest common denominator", the Catholic Church is in an awkward spot. All that is left is searching for "an ever deeper knowledge of each other's traditions in order to understand and learn from them." This is what unity means in the modern Church - sharing experiences. 

In case you think we are reading too much into these phrases or jumping to conclusions with our definition of ecumenism with "sharing experiences", consider these comments of the late Cardinal Dulles on the methodology of the modern ecumenical movement:

"[T]o surmount the remaining barriers we need a different method, one that invites a deeper conversion on the part of the churches themselves. I have therefore been urging an ecumenism of mutual enrichment by means of testimony. This proposal corresponds closely, I believe, with John Paul II’s idea of seeking the fullness of truth by means of an “exchange of gifts.”

With this mentality, Catholics would want to hear from the churches of the Reformation the reasons they have for speaking as they do of Christ alone, Scripture alone, grace alone, and faith alone, while Catholics tend to speak of Christ and the Church, Scripture and tradition, grace and cooperation, faith and works. We would want to learn from them how to make better use of the laity as sharers in the priesthood of the whole People of God. We would want to hear from evangelicals about their experience of conversion and from Pentecostals about perceiving the free action of the Holy Spirit in their lives. The Orthodox would have much to tell about liturgical piety, holy tradition, sacred images, and synodical styles of polity (Avery Cardinal Dulles, "Saving Ecumenism from Itself", First Things, Dec., 2007. See also our article, "At the Crossroads of Ecumenism").

In other words, in allowing other non-Catholic Christians to preach to us about their traditions, we approach unity in the context of a mutual enrichment by means of testimony, shifting 'unity' to the subjective plane and making about shared experiences, apparently based on the faulty assumption that understanding will bring us closer together. This is the manner in which Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew understand unity. Sharing experiences.

Of course, sharing experiences will never lead to formal unity, and Francis knows it, as well as Benedict and John Paul II knew it; it is thrown off into the future, as some eschatological reality beyond history. What is left for today then? To work for the good of humanity! Yes, we can find common ground in saving the planet!

"It is our profound conviction that the future of the human family depends also on how we safeguard – both prudently and compassionately, with justice and fairness – the gift of creation that our Creator has entrusted to us. Therefore, we acknowledge in repentance the wrongful mistreatment of our planet, which is tantamount to sin before the eyes of God. We reaffirm our responsibility and obligation to foster a sense of humility and moderation so that all may feel the need to respect creation and to safeguard it with care. Together, we pledge our commitment to raising awareness about the stewardship of creation; we appeal to all people of goodwill to consider ways of living less wastefully and more frugally, manifesting less greed and more generosity for the protection of God’s world and the benefit of His people" [Common Declaration, 6].

Since when did the mistreatment of the planet constitute one of the occasions of the Orthodox schism? This is just sappy, syrupy feel-goody stuff. Totally irrelevant to the divisions within Christianity and unworthy of this historic meeting.

After some pleas for peace in specific regions, the document closes with this comment:

"In an historical context marked by violence, indifference and egoism, many men and women today feel that they have lost their bearings. It is precisely through our common witness to the good news of the Gospel that we may be able to help the people of our time to rediscover the way that leads to truth, justice and peace" [ibid., 9].

"Common witness?" This is wrong on so many levels. There can be no "common witness" between Rome and the Orthodox precisely because we have different understandings of what the "good news of the Gospel" constitutes. The Orthodox reject a very important element of the Gospel - the real primacy entrusted to Peter and his successors by Christ. That is not some extrinsic custom or negotiable point; it is part of the Gospel; Vatican I stated the authority of the Pope to be de fide, which means it cannot be rejected without loss of the faith any more than can be the Trinity or the truths of our Lord's Incarnation. There can be no "common witness to the good news of the Gospel" if an essential element of the Gospel is rejected.

Or can there?

The only way we could have a common witness with the Orthodox if parts of the Gospel are rejected by them is if we only witness in common those points which we share in common - if, in other words, we seek a "common denominator." We may disagree on particulars, but we agree on basic things like the dignity of the human person, sanctity of the family, etc. and therefore we can focus on these broader common denominators - give a joint witness on the commonalities that we do agree upon.

Except Pope Francis specifically says "dialogue does not seek a theological lowest common denominator on which to reach a compromise."...Oh. 

So this Declaration, which some are touting as historic, groundbreaking, "huge", epic, etc. is really more fluff. This sort of thing can never help us towards reunion, and there are several reasons grounded in the broader position of the Catholic Church that make this so.

For one thing, reunion with the Orthodox is impossible and all ecumenical conversations on reunion are farcical until the Vatican formally renounces the 1993 Balamand Agreement. The Balamand Agreement was a declaration of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue which has formed the foundation for the Church's approach to the Orthodox over the past twenty years. Balamand specifically repudiates what it calls the "outdated ecclesiology" of presuming that the Orthodox need to "return" to Rome. The agreement states:

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church...To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the out-dated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. Their education should be objectively positive with respect of the other Church" (The Balamand Statement: Uniatism and the Present Search for Full Communion, 22,30).

The concept of reunion understood in terms of return to Rome - a concept that gave the Church such luminaries as Newman and Chesterton and Elizabeth Ann Seton- is repudiated by Balamand. The Balamand document also goes as far as to deny that the Catholic Church is the one true Church:

"[In the past] missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as "to bring them back" to one's own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted" [ibid.,10].

Again, let me emphasize, this document forms the backbone of the Catholic Church's understanding of its relation with the Orthodox. And in this document, formal reunion via return to Rome is repudiated. Until the Vatican backs away from these sorts of statements, the sort of meetings that happened this week in the Holy Land can yield nothing substantial. 

For more particulars on the Balamand Conference, read our lengthy article at the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website.

Lest we be tempted to think that this is some incidental whim of a non-authoritative committee, let us turn to the weightier opinions of none other than Cardinal Ratzinger, who has written much on the problem of ecumenism and who believes the vision proposed at Balamand is essentially correct.

In the 2003 book God and the World, then Cardinal Ratzinger reveals that the "unity" the modern Church is seeking through the ecumenical movement is radically different from the concept of "returning to Rome" as traditionally understood. In the book, which is in the format of a lengthy interview with journalist Peter Seewald, Seewald poses the question: “The Church prays for Christians to be reunited. But who ought to join up with whom?” Cardinal Ratzinger's reply is revolutionary and flips on its head the traditional understanding of what it means to belong to the Church:

“The formula that the great ecumenists have invented is that we go forward together. It’s not a matter of our wanting to achieve certain processes of integration, but we hope that the Lord will awaken people’s faith everywhere in such a way that it overflows from one to the other, and the one Church is there. As Catholics, we are persuaded that the basic shape of this one Church is given us in the Catholic Church, but that she is moving toward the future and will allow herself to be educated and led by the Lord. In that sense we do not picture for ourselves any particular modes of integration, but simply look to march on in faith under the leadership of the Lord – who knows the way.” (God and the World, Ignatius Press, 2003, pp. 452-53)

"We go forward together." Where do we go? Who knows, for "we do not picture for ourselves any particular modes of integration", nor do we even will a formal reunion, because "it's not a matter of our wanting to achieve a certain process of integration." Ratzinger, speaking ten years after Balamand, agrees that formal reintegration is neither fathomable in its mode nor even desirable in the modern Church.

Ratzinger's comment that "the Lord will awaken people’s faith everywhere in such a way that it overflows from one to the other, and the one Church is there" is particularly revolutionary, as it locates the Church not in an objective reality but in an exchange - a relationship. The concept of 'Church' for Ratzinger is more about becoming than being - it is located in the interplay between the various "churches". It is fundamentally a dynamic reality predicated on relationship. 

This novelty is not surprising, given the centrality of change, relation and evolution to Ratzinger's thought (see here). James Larson has also written convincingly on the centrality of the concept of "relationship" in the theology of Joseph Ratzinger.

If Church is found in relationship between various communities, then we have a fundamentally new concept of the Church, something never accounted for in Tradition and which allows for a radical redefinition of what it means to be "in the Church." This is nowhere so evident in Ratzinger's thought as in his comments on Protestantism, which while not referring to the Orthodox problem, help us locate the concept central to the ecumenical movement - a "different mode" of being a church.

We get a lucid summary of Ratzinger's opinion in his 1997 book Salt of the Earth when the Cardinal elaborates on what the Second Vatican Council meant by referring to Protestant groups as "ecclesial communities": 

"The word ‘ecclesial community’ is a term employed by the Second Vatican Council. The Council applied a very simple rule in these matters. A Church in the proper sense, as we understand it, exists where the episcopal office, as the sacramental expression of apostolic succession, is present –which also implies the existence of the Eucharist as a sacrament that is dispensed by the bishop and the priest. If this is not the case, then we are dealing with the emergence of another model, a new way of understanding what a church is, which at Vatican II we designated by the term ‘ecclesiastical community.’ The word was intended to indicate that such communities embody a different mode of being a church. As they themselves insist, it is precisely not the same mode in which the Churches of the great tradition of antiquity are Churches, but is based on a new understanding, according to which a church consists, not in the institution, but in the dynamism of the Word that gathers people into a congregation… (Salt of the Earth, 94-96).

A "different mode of being a church", something based on a "new understanding", located not in a physically identifiable body on this earth, but "in the dynamism of the Word" - the relationship of the people with God. This is the sense in which the concept of "Church" overflows between the various Christian groups, and in the interchange of these groups - what Cardinal Dulles called "an ecumenism of mutual enrichment" - "the one Church is there," to quote Ratzinger. This is the ecumenical thought of the 'Pope of Christian Unity.'

Ratzinger is no fool. He knows that this is a novel concept. Cardinal Dulles recognizes it as well. In the same article quoted above, Dulles paints a sharp contrast between ecumenism pre- and post-Vatican II:

"Vatican II, therefore, represents a sharp turn away from the purely negative evaluation of non-Catholic Christianity that was characteristic of the previous three centuries...Regarding the ecclesial status of non-Catholic Christians, Pius XII had taught as late as 1943 that they could not be true members of the Church because the Body of Christ was identical with the Catholic Church. Such Christians could not belong to the body except by virtue of some implicit desire, which would give them a relation that fell short of true incorporation. From a different point of view, Vatican II taught that every valid baptism incorporates the recipient into the crucified and glorified Christ, and that all baptized Christians were to some extent in communion with the Catholic Church...Relying on the new ecclesiology of communion, Catholic ecumenists now perceived their task as a movement from lesser to greater degrees of communion. All who believed in Christ and were baptized in his name already possessed a certain imperfect communion, which could be recognized, celebrated, and deepened" [Dulles, First Things, Dec. 2007].

The meeting between Francis and Bartholomew is an expression of this "new ecclesiology of communion", which proposes no "particular modes of integration" but simply speaks of moving towards an ill-defined unity grounded in mutual understanding which will somehow result in the Church becoming present in the dynamism of the faith-filled exchange between us. 

It is beyond the scope of this article to offer a traditional critique to this thought; hopefully, most readers of this blog will already see the many problems it poses. But the ultimate purpose of this article is to show that, as long as this concept of a "new ecclesiology of communion" spoken of by Dulles and Ratzinger and epitomized by Balamand is not rejected, there will never be a formal reunion - simply because our Church does not want it. Just like the bad dream where you know you have to leave to go somewhere but keep finding yourself bogged down by various details, so the Church speaks of reunion but never actually moves towards it. It has repudiated the only path towards real reunion - return to Rome, which is now only an "outdated ecclesiology." It is also a little unfair that the faithful continue to vainly hope for a formal reintegration when, as we have seen, the leaders of the Church have no plans for any such integration and do not even will it. This is very troubling.

In Redemptor Hominis, St. John Paul II reminds us that the path forward towards unity is uncertain, and that we have a right to express our uncertainties:

"There are people who in the face of the difficulties or because they consider that the first ecumenical endeavours have brought negative results would have liked to turn back. Some even express the opinion that these efforts are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism. It is perhaps a good thing that the spokesmen for these opinions should express their fears" (St. John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, 6).

Consider my fears expressed.

Ecumenism from a Protestant View

There is much one could say about the modern Catholic approach to ecumenism; but it is important to note that, at least as regards to Protestantism, the modern ecumenical movement does not make much sense on their side either. In this post, I'd like to examine modern ecumenism from the Protestant angle and show why it does not make much sense either.

First, recall that we are talking about modern ecumenism; traditional ecumenical dialogue seeks to engage non-Catholic Christians in friendly dialogue for the purpose of winning them back to the Catholic faith through charitable argumentation and prayer (what the modern hierarchy refers to as the "outdated ecclesiology of return"); in traditional ecumenical dialogue, dialogue is a means and the end is the return of the non-Catholic to the Church.

In modern ecumenism, on the other hand, the means of dialogue is exalted to an end in an of itself, and the traditional end of return to the Church is chucked altogether in favor of a purely worldly end of "religious tolerance" and "world peace." Discussion is held for the purpose of having more discussion, in hopes that our discussions will mutually enrich each other as we share experiences. This form of ecumenism really leads nowhere other than creating a situation in which Protestants and Catholics can affirm that we are all okay wherever we are at and that the most important thing is that we can have some sort of fellowship despite out differences.

We all know that this kind of ecumenism tends towards indifferentism and is ultimately untenable from a Catholic view, but lets look at this problem from a Protestant perspective as well.

If one thing is clear about Protestants, it is that they are not Catholics; in other words, they do not accept those Christian teachings which are distinctively Catholic and which, if they did, would make them members of the Catholic Church. There are many teachings that would fall in this "distinctively Catholic" category, but lets take, for example, the infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, and the practice of going to sacramental Confession.

Protestants come in two sorts. Those who thing the Church is the Whore of Babylon and are not interested in any sort of fellowship with Catholics, and those who, for whatever reason want to fellowship with Catholics and believe that Protestants and Catholics can get together on a lot of issues; in short, one sort believes that Catholicism is not a valid branch of Christianity, the other does, and subsequently, believes they can have real fellowship with Catholics.

As much as I dislike the ignorant, fundamentalist critiques of Catholicism, the fundamentalist is being more intellectually honest - he understands that Catholicism is incompatible with his brand of Christianity and attacks it as such. The more ecumenical-minded Protestant, however, is being a little but more disingenuous, however, because if the Catholic doctrines we profess as Catholics are in fact wrong, then we are just as far off and whacked-out as the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons; in fact, maybe more.

For example:

If that piece of bread we are adoring up there is not Christ Himself, then we are idolaters. There is no question about it. If that isn't God, we are worshiping bread and breaking the first commandment in a major way. We are worse than pagans; pagans at least worshiped statues that looked like gods, or forces of nature - we are worshiping a piece of bread. We might as well worship an apple or a meatloaf.

If the man in Rome is not the successor of Peter with the authority to infallibly bind and loose, then he is a monstrous impostor claiming the powers to bind consciences and to act falsely in the name of God Himself when he in fact has no special power. An institution that would perpetuate this base lie and bind so many souls to the whims of this impostor must be desperately wicked.

Finally, if a priest does not have power to absolve us of our sins in the name of Christ through the sacrament of confession, and if this is not the normative means of forgiveness that God willed for His people, then what sort of twisted system must this be that compels people, on the pain of eternal damnation, to tell all of their secrets and failings to another man who (if he is not who the Church claims him to be) can not but default to a position of power and manipulation over the penitent, leading to all sorts of mischief. What a diabolical system!

These are harsh words, but let us keep in mind that, if Catholicism is false, every accusation above is true. We are idolaters. The earthly head of our Church is a megalomaniacal dictator, if not the anti-Christ. Our priests are slave-masters and we the basest knaves, revealing every secret and sin to them in good faith, thinking they are absolving us but in reality we are only enslaving ourselves more.

It comes down to this: Either Catholicism is absolutely correct, or it is absolutely wrong. Either it is from God in its truth and beauty, or it is from the devil in its error and ugly abuse of power. There is no in between.

Now then, we have already established that Protestants are not Catholics (duh); i.e., they are not the group of people who would say that Catholicism is "absolutely correct." But if they deny that Catholicism is true, particularly the points about the pope's jurisdiction, Transubstantiation and the spiritual powers of the priesthood, how can they even affirm that the Catholic Church is good at all, let alone Christian enough to have fellowship with? If we worship a piece of bread, attribute the powers of God to a man, and are all bent in superstitious spiritual slavery to a power-hungry clerical caste (and if Catholicism is false, that would be the case), how can they stand shoulder to shoulder with us, acclaiming us as "fellow believers" and working together with us as Christians?

Christian fundamentalists at least have had the intellectual honesty to see this as a charade and have attacked attempts of their fellow Protestants to have fellowship with Catholics. They point out (and rightly so) that if the teachings of the Catholic Church are false (which all Protestants assert), then the Catholic Church deserves to be ostracized and worked against, not fellowshipped with. If Catholicism is false, Protestants should treat Catholics the way most Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, treat Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Scientologists.

You see, modern ecumenism makes no sense on the Protestant side, even as it makes no sense on the Catholic side. As I mentioned above, there is room for a traditional ecumenism, an ecumenism that seeks to debate points of disagreement with the purpose of coming to a conclusion one way or another; but an ecumenism that simply seeks to work together to build "understanding" undermines both sides. So long as one party thinks it is right and the other wrong, modern ecumenism is not possible. Either we must revert to a more traditional understanding of ecumenism, or we must cease being a people who claim to have a unique and trustworthy revelation from God.

Should Catholics participate in the Taize movement?

For many years it has been common in many Catholic parishes for prayers, songs, and practices from the French Taize movement to be incorporated into parish life. Even Pope Benedict XVI has noted this trend, stating with approval that "these days the songs of Taizé are filling the basilicas of Rome" [1]. With their focus on an ecumenism of understanding, on uniting around what binds Christians and avoiding debates on what divides, Taize has been held up as a model of the modern ecumenical movement. Its founder, Brother Roger Schutz (d. 2005) has been praised by a succession of popes and Christian leaders across many denominations. Therefore, it is not surprising that songs and ideas of the Taize community have been introduced at the parish level to nourish spirituality and promote ecumenism.

What is the Taize movement? The Taize movement is a self-described ecumenical monastic community founded after World War II by "Brother" Roger Schutz, a Protestant who felt a radical commitment towards the full reconciliation of all Christians. With a few followers he set up his small "community" in the village of Taize, France, and from there began an ecumenical "religious order" open to Christians of all traditions with an aim of building understanding across confessional lines, working towards full unity of all Christians and an interior commitment to Christ, which Pope Benedict XVI referred to as an "ecumenism of holiness" [2].

The ecumenism of Brother Roger and the Taize movement is based on a kind of inclusiveness that focuses solely on things Christians have in common while neglecting to go into issues that could be potentially divisive, a kind of "mere Christianity." Cardinal Walter Kaspar, who knew Brother Roger, described him ecumenism according to Taize in this manner:

"The search for unity was for [Brother Roger] a kind of guideline in even the most concrete decisions of each day: to welcome joyfully any action that could bring Christians of different traditions closer, to avoid every word or act that could slow down their reconciliation." [3]

But is the Taize movement Catholic? Or rather, since we know it is an "ecumenical community", are prayers and practices derived from this movement fitting to be used in parish settings?

Before going any further, we ought to establish the fundamental point that the Taize movement is not Catholic in any meaningful sense of the word. That does not mean it is bad; John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all spoken very highly of Brother Roger Schutz on a personal level, and undoubtedly the Taize experience has contributed to the erection of many meaningful bonds between Catholics and Protestants.

But the question is not whether there is anything positive about Taize, but whether or not Taize practices, prayers, songs, etc. are appropriate in parish settings. To this question I must answer with an unqualified negative. If Taize is not a formally in union with the Church and the Pope and has no intention to obtain this status (and one hallmark of Taize is that they pride themselves on not being bound to confessional ties), then there is a strong argument to be made against incorporating Taize into Catholic worship or participating in Taize activities oneself.

Let's look at Canon Law. Canon Law, as far as I know, has nothing to say about the incorporation of non-Catholic practices into Catholic parishes; this would be something each local Ordinary would legislate on. Nevertheless, Canon Law does give us a broad vision of the sort of activities and prayers the Church proposes as suitable for parish life.

Some Guidelines from Canon Law

First, let's look at Canon 209 on the rights and obligations of the Christian laity:

Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

It is difficult to see how participating in a movement that eschews confessional ties and seeks no formal union with the Church of Rome does not violate the prescription of Canon 209 that Catholics maintain communion with the Church "even in their own manner of acting." Even if participating in Taize activities does not break communion, it is hard to see how it promotes it.

Next, Canon 210 on the obligation of the faithful to promote the growth of the Church:

Can. 210. All the Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their own condition.

The Christian faithful are not directed to work for the buildup of some concept "Christendom" or "Christianity" in general; they are called to "promote the growth of the Church" in particular; and as Vatican II and the CDF teach, the Church of God is to be understood as the Catholic Church. We buildup God's kingdom by building up the Church. This leads us to the question of whether or not working to promote an non-denominational, ecumenical movement really leads to the promotion of the Catholic Church. Again, It is difficult to see how participating in a movement that eschews confessional ties and seeks no formal union with the Church of Rome somehow promotes the growth of the Catholic Church.

Next, the obligation of the faithful to know the Catholic Faith:

Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.

Does anyone doubt that the "knowledge of Christian doctrine" envisioned here is the teachings of the Catholic faith? This familiarity Christians are supposed to have of Christian doctrine is supposed to be necessary to enable them to live, announce, and defend it. Now ecumenical efforts, by their nature, tend to avoid those points of doctrine that are distinctively Catholic (these are the "divisive" doctrines Protestants talk about). How can Christians obtain the necessary specific knowledge to defend the Catholic Faith envisioned in Canon 229 when the particular points of Faith that are unique to Catholicism are omitted? Again, this Canon would not prohibit Taize activities, but it lends strength to the argument that such activities contribute little to teaching Catholic doctrine and that time could be better spent elsewhere.

Next let's look at the obligations of pastors in making sure their people are educated in the Catholic Faith:

Can. 528 §1. A pastor is obliged to make provision so that the word of God is proclaimed in its entirety to those living in the parish; for this reason, he is to take care that the lay members of the Christian faithful are instructed in the truths of the faith, especially by giving a homily on Sundays and holy days of obligation and by offering catechetical instruction. He is to foster works through which the spirit of the gospel is promoted, even in what pertains to social justice. He is to have particular care for the Catholic education of children and youth. He is to make every effort, even with the collaboration of the Christian faithful, so that the message of the gospel comes also to those who have ceased the practice of their religion or do not profess the true faith.

A pastor should make sure the word of God is proclaimed "in its entirety", that is, without "divisive" parts of it (like the spiritual and jurisdictional authority of the See of Peter, for example) being omitted for the sake of ecumenical dialogue. Note that pastors are to have special care to make sure parishioners get catechetical instruction in the "truths of the faith" and are to have particular care for "Catholic education" in the "true faith." It is a pastor's job to make sure that whatever is going on in a parish is specifically Catholic and promoting the "true faith." This would necessarily proscribe something like Taize, which is not a Catholic movement and as such does not promote "the true faith."

Finally, what norms does Canon Law envision with regards to the catechetical opportunities pastors are to make available to their parishioners?

Can. 779 Catechetical instruction is to be given by using all helps, teaching aids, and instruments of social communication which seem more effective so that the faithful, in a manner adapted to their character, capabilities and age, and conditions of life, are able to learn Catholic doctrine more fully and put it into practice more suitably.

To put it simply, whatever is used for catechesis must promote "Catholic doctrine"; not pan-Christianity, not a multi-denominational vague Christianity, but Catholicism. Taize materials and prayers are by their nature vague and written from a point of view of not promoting any specific denomination, much less the true faith proclaimed by the Catholic Church. In fact, Taize prayers and practices go out of their way to avoid promoting Catholicism. In that sense they are just your typical Protestant group, seeking for unity and oneness apart from the physical unity that comes from adherence to the Catholic Faith.

These norms of course do not prohibit Taize activities from being carried out at the parish level; ultimately this would be the call of the pastor or bishop. But the canons do give us a broad vision of how catechetical and devotional practices are to look at the parish level. Lay persons are supposed to occupy themselves with learning the Catholic faith and being able to defend it in their state in life; pastors are to make opportunities for such education available and by the solicitude guarantee the Catholicity of whatever materials or programs are used. In short, all the resources of a parish are to be directed towards the building up of the Catholic faith. The code does not envision a situation where non-Catholic materials or programs are brought in to do this, nor a situation where non-Catholic materials or prayers from something like Taize would be preferred over traditional Catholic prayers sanctioned by long use and Tradition.

The Popes and Taize

This should be enough to settle the question, if it were not for the problematic fact that Taize has been endorsed by several popes. Blessed John XXIII called Taize a "little springtime" and John Paul II referred to it as a "spring of water" [4]. The latter pontiff in particular seemed to regard Taize as a kind of experimental model for the new ecumenism and allowed certain liberties to be taken regarding communio in sacris with Taize that would not have ever been permitted in other circumstances; more on this below. But for now, let's look at the attitude some of the popes have taken on Taize.

John Paul II visited Taize during his pontificate and was a friend of Brother Roger personally. During his visit, he made an interesting comment about the mission of Taize being to strengthen Protestant's ties to their own denominations. He said:

By desiring to be yourselves a "parable of community", you will help all whom you meet to be faithful to their denominational ties, the fruit of their education and their choice in conscience, but also to enter more and more deeply into the mystery of communion that the Church is in God’s plan." [5]

While it is undeniable that John Paul II endorsed Taize and spoke favorably of it, I cannot be anything other than mystified by his praise of Taize's role in helping Protestants be "faithful to their denominational ties." In other words, yes, Taize is great, if you want to help Protestants be better Protestants.

Yet, in the same sermon, John Paul II stated that the commitment to dialogue and spirit of openness manifested in the Taize community were valuable assets in restoring the "visible unity" of Christendom in the quest for "full communion of one same faith":

"I do not forget that in its unique, original and in a certain sense provisional vocation, your community can  awaken astonishment and encounter incomprehension and suspicion. But because of your passion for the reconciliation of all Christians in a full communion, because of your love for the Church, you will be able to continue, I am sure, to be open to the will of the Lord.

By listening to the criticisms or suggestions of Christians of different Churches and Christian communities and keeping what is good, by remaining in dialogue with all but not hesitating to express your expectations and your projects, you will not disappoint the young, and you will be instrumental in making sure that the effort desired by Christ to recover the visible unity of his Body in the full communion of one same faith never slackens." [6]

With all due respect and deference to the late pontiff, there is a certain contradiction in his words. One cannot help but wonder how Taize is helping the disunited Christians of the world towards "full communion" in "visible unity" if, as John Paul states, Taize helps non-Catholics "to be faithful to their denominational ties." Full visible communion is only possible if an individual or ecclesial body is in formal union with the successor of Peter; i.e., if they enter the Catholic Church. How can this visible unity be attained if Protestants are being encouraged to remain faithful to their own denominations? It is an obvious contradiction, not unlike Mother Teresa's comments that the way she spreads the love of Christ is by encouraging Muslims to be better Muslims and Hindus to be better Hindus.

Benedict XVI also has praised Taize. As recently as December 29, 2012, the pope stated that Taize exemplified a "spiritually lived ecumenism" and that the example of Brother Roger calls us all to:

"let ourselves be guided by his witness towards an ecumenism which is truly interiorized and spiritualized...may all of you be bearers of this message of unity. I assure you of the irrevocable commitment of the Catholic Church to continue seeking the paths of reconciliation leading to the visible unity of Christians." [7]

It would be interesting to know how Benedict defines an ecumenism that is "interiorized and spiritualized"; presumably he means an ecumenism that does not simply seek institutional communion but a true and deep conversion and true reconciliation of heart. However, it is interesting that neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI, despite noting Taize's commitment towards "reconciliation" and "full communion" mention actual return to the Catholic Church as a viable option. This is ironic, since only by return to the Catholic Church can there be any "full communion."

This situation with full communion is not that complicated. It could be solved tomorrow. It could be solved if all the Protestants of the world abjured Protestantism and joined the Catholic Church. The only problem is they don't want to. It's not a matter of seeking "paths of reconciliation", but of using charity, reason and prayer to guide our separated brethren to walk down the one path into the one sheepfold.

Do the popes support Taize? Yes they do, but their support for it is in the context of support for a broader "new ecumenism" that replaces what has been called the traditional "outdated ecclesiology of return" with an ecumenism based on "shared faith experiences", as Cardinal Avery Dulles once proposed. So the pope's support of Taize is a support of an experiment in the new ecumenism.

Taize and the New Ecumenism

Note in the comments above that Benedict XVI referred to the "provisional nature" of Taize. This is an interesting comment; it signifies that the status of the Taize community is not what is ultimately desired; that it will eventually give way to something more perfect. Yet, the term "provisional" seems to signify that Taize, though not perfect, will do for now. This a very interesting thing, for the pope seems to be suggesting that Taize represents a kind of transitional step on the road to "full communion" and "visible unity" (what that unity can look like is uncertain, since John Paul II also praised Taize for strengthening the existing denominational ties of its adherents). Taize is an experiment in the new ecumenism, and experiment in which traditional confessional boundaries are crossed and things that never would have been permitted traditionally are allowed as this experiment continues. There is a certain tension and ambiguity with regards to how Taize is treated by the Church.

The best example of this is Brother Roger Schutz himself. Brother Roger, a Protestant pastor from a Calvinist background who never repudiated Protestantism and never considered himself a Roman Catholic, yet he received Eucharistic communion from John Paul II; he took communion every morning at the Catholic Mass in Taizé; and he was given communion by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself, at the funeral Mass for John Paul II. Brother Roger even received a Catholic funeral presided over by none other than Cardinal Kaspar. Brother Roger's participation in Catholic liturgies were so frequent that it was rumored that he had secretly converted to Catholicism, something his community vehemently denies. Those in the hierarchy who knew Brother Roger also deny he had any conversion to Catholicism [6]. What are we to make of Brother Roger's participation in communio in sacris?

In a circumstance that can only be called extraordinary and entirely irregular and not sanctioned anywhere in Catholic Tradition, Brother Roger was granted permission to participate fully in the Church's Eucharistic celebrations despite the fact that he was never received into the Church. As off as this sounds, this is the explanation offered by the Vatican for these anomalies. Let's listen to the words of Cardinal Kaspar himself, who called the Calvinist Reformed tradition "a beautiful blend of catechesis, devotion, theological formation and Christian witness" [8]. Kaspar says of Brother Roger:

"As the years passed, the faith of the prior of Taizé was progressively enriched by the patrimony of faith of the Catholic Church. According to his own testimony, it was with reference to the mystery of the Catholic faith that he understood some of the elements of the faith, such as the role of the Virgin Mary in salvation history, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic gifts and the apostolic ministry in the Church, including the ministry of unity exercised by the Bishop of Rome. In response to this, the Catholic Church had accepted that he take communion at the Eucharist, as he did every morning in the large church at Taizé."[9]

So because Brother Roger accepted certain aspects of Catholic theology, he was granted an "understanding" that allowed him to receive communion despite not being a formal member of the Catholic Church? This is amazing in its novelty, but it is perhaps an example of the ecumenism of mutual understanding envisioned by Cardinal Dulles?

Even if Brother Roger's status was ambiguous, it is good to stop at this point and remind ourselves of what the Code of Canon Law states clearly an unambiguously:

Can.  844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone.

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reminds us that Catholics cannot receive communion at Protestant churches, and likewise Protestants cannot receive communion from Catholic priests:

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church.  (CCC 1400)

The only exception the Church admits of is the case of "grave necessity", but note, only if there is evidence that the Christian in grave danger holds the Catholic Faith, at least as regards those sacraments:

When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions. (CCC 1401)

It is very hard to justify any claim that Brother Roger was in a state of grave necessity when he was receiving communion. More likely than not, Brother Roger's exception to Canon Law and the teaching of the Catechism was allowed an an exercise of the Church's shadowy ex voce teaching; that is, while the Church has not officially changed its law or teaching on intercommunion with Protestants, as an exercise in support of the new ecumenism, the Church has nevertheless proposed an alternate understanding of ecumenism and communion in low level pronouncements, relaxations of discipline and the allowance of obscure situations like that of Brother Roger for the sake of promoting a concept contrary to Tradition without officially changing the Church's position.

To go back to our original question, is there anything "fishy" about Taize prayer? Should Catholics be involved in Taize programs at the parish level? I do not believe it is advisable. Despite the pronouncements of the popes, at the end of the day, Taize is not a Catholic movement. Inspired by Catholicism? Accepting of certain aspects of Catholicism? On good terms with Catholicism? Sure. It is all those things. But it lacks the one thing necessary - full communion with the Catholic Church, which is the one thing that would make it Catholic, and ironically the one thing it lacks even while it professes to seek it. There is no reason why Catholics need to be involved in this when, as Canon Law states, we should occupying ourselves with programs and prayers that teach the Catholic Faith specifically.



[1]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121229_taize_en.html
[2] ibid.
[3]  http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/206302?eng=y
[4] http://www.taize.fr/en_article6718.html
[5] ibid.
[6] ibid.

[7] http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121229_taize_en.html
[8] http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/206302?eng=y
[9] ibid.

Anglicanorum Coetibus bears more fruit

More great news on the Anglican front as 1,000 Canadian Anglicans seek reunion with Rome. Read the full story here in the Ottawa Citizen. This has been one positive year for true ecumenism!

Anglican Personal Ordinariates

On Wednesday, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America announced that they met in Orlando with Reverend Christopher Phillips of the 'Anglican Use' Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement (San Antonio, Texas). The purpose of the meeting the decision was made formally to request the implementation of the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution 'Anglicanorum Coetibus' in the United States of America by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." The Anglican Church in America, which I guess is currently not part of the Anglican Communion, consists of about 5,200 members in 100 parishes. As far as I know, this will be the first chunk of Anglicans to make use of the provisions laid down in Anglicanorum Coetibus, which was promulgated November 9th, 2009.

In that document, the Pope proposes bringing Anglicans into full union with Rome by offering them a personal ordinariate. While many are comparing the proposed personal ordinariates with the personal prelature status of Opus Dei, my understanding is that the two are a little different, though both are "personal" as opposed to territorial organizations (such as a diocese). The main differences are that the single personal prelature of Opus Dei is worldwide with no recognized boundaries, and that Opus Dei is formally composed of only priests and deacons, while obviously the Anglican ordinariates will be composed of laity as well.

The Vatican itself has said a comparison to Military Ordinariates is more appropriate, though there are still differences here: there is only one military ordinariate per country, but Anglicanorum Coetibus foresees the possibility of multiple Anglican ordinariates within a single country, which will be established " as needed, in consultation with local Conferences of Bishops." Furthermore, the Anglican ordinariates sound like they will have a little bit more structure to them, with institutions such as a "governing council" that are lacking in the military ordinariates.

They are also different from the structures of the varying Eastern Catholic Churches, who are autonomous ("particular") churches, not part of the Latin rite. By contrast, the Anglican ordinariates would not be their own distinct rites; they would be part of the Latin rite but would have permission to adopt an "Anglican Use" liturgy, which I understand to be the Ordinary Form of the Mass modified to accommodate some elements of Anglican liturgical tradition.

The point is that these Anglican ordinariates will be a novel experiment, at least in the specific manner they will be implemented. I do not think there is anything wrong with this sort of novelty. Ecumenical relations is not something like the liturgy where novelty must always be viewed with suspicion. The reasons why various Christian communities are out of communion with Rome are based on specific, historical circumstances and biases that cannot always be overcome with a single, blanket solution. What worked for bringing about the Union of Brest in 1595 with the Ruthenians would not necessarily work with other groups, just as the 33 Articles of Union that came out of the Brest agreements could not just be transferred to other groups. Throughout her history, the Church has always dealt with groups returning to the Church on an ad hoc basis with various agreements, concords and terms of union specific to each group and its particular historical situation. Sometimes, as we see with Anglicanorum Coetibus, this may take the form of a novel canonical structure.

Therefore, I don't see any reason for Trads to get bent out of shape about this novel canonical structure. Nor do I know anybody who is bent out of shape about it; every Trad I have spoken with agrees that Anglicanorum Coetibus is an exceptional leap towards true ecumenism, an ecumenism of return rather than an ecumenism of endless dialogue. Rather than just talk about the need for unity, Benedict lays out a specific path and says, "If you are serious about unity, follow this road." Now we are seeing some Anglicans in America are beginning to walk down the path marked by Benedict. One reason this experiment has been successful is because Benedict is pursuing ecumenism in a manner consistent with the Church's tradition; instead of saying, "Let's get together and talk about the shared riches of our ecclesial traditions, as some eminent clergymen have suggested, Benedict follows the path laid down in the Church's history and says, "If you want to come back, do x, y and z and we'll do such-and-such to accommodate you."

Since these personal ordinariates are novelties, it will be quite interesting to see how they work; some are already saying that this could be a means of restoring the SSPX to union and even the Orthodox. I would say this is much more probable with the SSPX than the Orthodox, who have much more than twenty-two years of schism to overcome. Wherever this goes with regards to the SSPX or the Orthodox, it is at least already bearing good fruit with the Anglicans for whom it was created.

Nevertheless, I can see some potential difficulties with the state of affairs envisioned by Anglicanorum Coetibus.

In the first place, we must remember that the Anglicans are not in the same boat as the Eastern Orthodox, nor have they ever been regarded as such by the Church. The fact that they lost their ordination back in the time of Edward VI and the Protestantizing effects of centuries of "Low Church" influence have so altered the Anglican liturgy that it is a stretch in my opinion to treat it as if it were just like the liturgy of the Greeks or the Russians, who have valid Holy Orders, valid apostolic succession and liturgies that sometimes stretch back to the first centuries. The Anglican Church was deliberately built up by stripping their liturgy of everything Catholic, even changing the form of the sacraments so as to lose their validity. This liturgical "tradition" should not be treated as on par with the legitimate liturgies of the east.

But is this not the message we are sending when we allow returning Anglicans to enter into communion with Rome but maintain an 'Anglican Use' liturgy? I don't know enough about the Anglican liturgy to pretend to know exactly what the Anglican Use consists of or how different it is from the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, but I cannot help but wonder if it is a little insulting to martyrs such as St. Edmund Campion and St. Oliver Plunkett who suffered martyrdom rather than accept the Anglican liturgy that is now going to be given a special place within the Catholic Church? While I can see there being good grounds for accepting as is a rite or liturgy that has valid sacraments and an ancient apostolic pedigree, I have a difficult time making the same case for a liturgy that was crafted by men who hated the Church and wanted to suppress Catholic doctrines.

I suppose the answer to this depends on exactly what the 'Anglican Use' consists of; I am certain Rome would not permit this liturgical expression to contain anything positively harmful to the faith. It could very well be that the 'Anglican Use' liturgies might be Anglican liturgies that are more heavily Catholicized and much more acceptable. Nor do I know if the 'Anglican Use' that members of the Anglicans in America group want to use is similar to the Anglican Use permitted by John Paul II in 1980 in a minority of parishes in the United States. It is quite possible that this Anglican Use contains many very traditional elements that Trads would be comfortable with. Yet if this Anglican Use does contain elements more associated with the origins of Anglicanism (such as a omission of prayers for the dead and references to sacrifice), then I could see there being good grounds for saying the Church of 2010 is being inconsistent with the Church of 1555. But again, it depends on what this Anglican Use consists of, which I don't profess to know anything about. If anybody knows, please enlighten me.

In the second place, while personal ordinariates seem to be ideal for incorporating entire groups into the Church without making thousands of people go through the rigmarole of taking RCIA classes, I wonder if there is not something lost in that the returning Anglicans now no longer need to make a real return? Will returning Anglicans get a real experience of the catholicity of the Church if they are allowed their own separate structures, complete with governing councils an ex-Anglican bishops? Would they not be better integrated as Catholics by being dumped into the mainstream Catholic population and fanning out into our dioceses and territorial parishes? In short, have they really made a return, or has Rome just decided to take them where they stand?

This might be a moot point, for one could easily make the argument that even those within the diocesan structure seldom get an true experience of the Church's catholicity. The confusion of the liberal crisis, decades of limp-wristed liturgies and rampant anti-Romanism ensure that the vast majority of Catholics in the mainstream Church in America do not get a deep experience of the Church's catholicity or her tradition. These Anglicans might not appreciate the mainstream Church in America anyway; after all, these are people who are leaving their church precisely because it is too liberal. How will they find the climate in most American parishes? It may be paradoxically true to say that they will get a greater exposure to the Church's catholicity by remaining in their personal ordinariates, much the same way that one who frequents an FSSP chapel gets a greater dose of the Church's catholicity than one who goes to the local new age territorial parish in the Diocese of Albequerque.

This is a shame, because we could truly use these people in our mainstream, territorial parishes. But I think that this whole situation is balanced on a fulcrum - as long as the Church in America as a whole is perceived as too compromising with the world, too hostile to tradition and too out of sync with the Holy Father, then I predict we will continually see the most disciplined, educated and traditionally minded persons filling up the ranks of independent chapels, these personal ordinariates, as well as more Latins "defecting" to the Byzantine Catholic rites; it's a kind of brain drain. On the other hand, when the Church at large begins to swing back to a more orthodox, traditional position, and this is commonly perceived by the laity, only then will you have these stalwart defenders of orthodoxy (like seminarians who currently get diverted into the FSSP) willing to join the mainstream Church and the territorial parishes.

It will be very interesting to see how events unfold. I give thanks to God for the 5,200 Anglicans returning home due to Anglicanorum Coetibus. I pray that these new personal ordinariates do serve as a helpful model upon which to base future ecumenical agreements. And I thank God for our Pope who is a true pope of ecumenism.

Sts. Edmund Campion and Oliver Plunkett, orate pro nobis!