What the Sign of the Cross Does

From the Apostolic Tradition, often credited to Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215 CE), 42:

If you are tempted, seal your foreheads reverently. For this is the Sign of the Passion, displayed and made manifest against the devil, provided that you do it with faith, not to be seen by men, but by presenting it with skill like a shield.

Because the Adversary, when he sees the strength of the heart and when he sees the inner man which is animated by the Word show, formed on the exterior, the interior image of the Word, he is made to flee by the Spirit which is in you. This is symbolized by the Paschal lamb which was sacrificed, the blood of which Moses sprinkled on the threshold, and smeared on the doorposts. He told us of the faith which is now in us, which was given to us through the perfect Lamb.

By sealing the forehead and eyes with the hand, we turn aside the one who is seeking to destroy us.

Finding a Counterpoint Blog

Later today, I want to discuss a recent post on the Oak Leaves blog, but before I do, I would like to apologize to that blog for citing it as often as I do. Honestly I find it difficult to find a Catholic or Adventist blog that directly discusses the issues that divide us, and Oak Leaves is about my best option for now:

1. Catholic blogs find Adventism a curiosity at best, and those who mention it, do so only passingly. They provide nothing substantive on which to comment.

2. The better Adventist blogs are "progressive," more interested in defending same-sex marriage and environmentalism than in discussing a still entrenched touchstone of Adventist theology and evangelism: criticism of the Catholic Church. They therefore contribute little to the discussions characteristic of our blog. (In fact, most progressive Adventists almost pretend as if the denomination did not hold the views it does. In their churches and websites, they advertise Adventism as a religious group primarily interested in holistic living and social justice, pretending, or conveniently omitting mention of the fact, that "abhorring popery" remains an entrenched Adventist ideal. The reality is, the Seventh-day Adventist Church spends millions of dollars publicly attacking one Christian denomination in particular and by name, and breeding a culture of misinformation about that Church. . . . Don't believe the hype.)

3. Most Adventist blogs that actually discuss Catholicism from the historic Adventist viewpoint are fringe and paranoid. (And this makes sense: the modern blog discusses current events; if one attaches prophetic significance to current events, they will probably do so in a conspiratorial light.)

4. Middle-of-the-road Adventists blogs often assume the Adventist prophetic interpretation in their posts. They contribute nothing new to the discussion, but merely repeat what they have received as "bible truths" without a critical eye.

This is why Bill Cork's commentary is refreshing. Bill has a unique perspective into the theology and experience of both denominations. And, although our educational backgrounds and experience differ, I am mildly conversant with many of the theological issues he discusses, though not all. Also, Bill Cork's reversion to Adventism is a foil to my conversion story on some level, and teaches me more about where I am. I always appreciate his insights, even where I disagree: he is articulate and intelligent.

So I apologize if I seem to cite him too frequently (not that anyone has claimed as much). We need another good Adventist blog that discusses Catholicism. Or, we need more defenses of Adventism on this blog, which I can counter in response posts.

A 'Tolerant' City

A San Francisco court evaluates whether the city can condemn the Vatican. News and commentary, more news, and more insightful commentary. Please pray for the court's decision, and Mary, victorious over Satan, pray with us.

This resolution has many similarities with the condemnation of BJU that many on this blog also found disconcerting. Also of note, the resolution in question recycles many inflammatory anti-Catholic ideas: e.g., the Vatican as a "foreign country" meddling in American affairs, the CDF as "the inquisition." All this indicates once again that the anti-Catholicism of liberal America is just another repackaging of the eclaims and accusations made by the KKK a century ago. Philip Jenkins is right to call anti-Catholicism America's "last acceptable prejudice."

P.S. I disagree that the Church must eventually suffer for its views, as Fr. Z believes. It violates the principle of Catholic optimism. Pray hard.

Christus vincit; Iesus Christos Nika; Christ triumphs.

Worf Goes to Church

A Catholic perspective on the theological consequences of discovering extra-terrestrial life. A sound read.

The Swim through Tiber: Sifting Through the Press

Rather than provide links to the various articles I've been reading, I'll let First Things blog do that. This is how I sift through all these conflicting reports:

1. Pope Benedict obviously wants the Anglican Communion to remain united, believing its ecumenical partnership has greatly advanced the final reunion of the Protestant churches with Rome (e.g., ARCIC Joint Statements on Mary and Authority, for instance). If Anglicanism becomes emboldened in its departure from a Catholic ecclesiology, that dialogue will collapse (as Kasper noted earlier this year), and with it, a significant segment of the dialogue with the churches of the Protestant/English Reformations. Catholicism cannot afford to simply abandon the Anglican communion to the new liberal direction it has chosen.

2. Rome prefers not to appear as if it is betraying Canterbury and its other ecumenical partners in the Anglican communion. In fact, Rome still has faith in Canterbury, among all Anglican Sees (the church of Sts. Augustine and Thomas Becket), and does not want to finally abandon it to the liberalizing elements in the Anglican communion. No doubt, Canterbury is liberal; but Canterbury is also pensive, collected, and committed to Christian unity. It is the keystone in the quest to maintain as much Anglican unity as is possible, in the hopes of eventually salvaging the entire communion. Rome will not exasperate the situation further by dramatically undermining Canterbury.

3. Nevertheless, Pope Benedict will not turn away a potential convert to the Catholic Church, or obstruct the path of that convert unnecessarily. In the past, he has noted how oppurtunities have been lost in reuniting some to the Catholic Church.

4. If Summorum Pontificum is any indication, Benedict (1) values liturgical diversity and traditionalism, and (2) is open to reuniting disgruntled segments of the Church seperated by liturgical preference. In many respects, this is the situation of many Anglo-Catholics. And, if Summorum Pontificum is any indication, Benedict will make any moves to advance those goals unilaterally if need be, in spite of the protests or resistance of the English bishops (many of whom already attempted to obstruct implementation of the motu proprio). We can trust Benedeict, and must continue to pray for him. I am almost at tears for how much I love, and am grateful for, his ministry

5. Pope Benedict probably remains skeptical of "uniatism," given the troubled history of the Eastern Catholic churches; in many respects, uniatism has only solidified the division of Christians.

6. Nevertheless, this skepticism of uniatism only goes so far. Rome will not surrender the Eastern Catholic churches, recognizing that (1) unity with the true Church is more important than strengthening an ecumenical partner, or easing tension, in the hope of a broader unity, and (2) the Eastern Catholic churches are an important--if not, necessary--expiriment in Catholic-Orthodox reunion, providing a prophetic vision of harmonic reunion that might allay Orthodox fears of absorption or submission. Translated into the situation of conservative Anglicans seekig reunion, it is easy to see how the reunion of at least some Anglicans to the Church of Rome in a stable structure is the most ideal available option of the table for Rome.

7. Pope Benedict has some flexibility in this situation, since a body not affiliated with the Anglican Communion (i.e., the TAC) has issued a request to return. Thus, Benedict can create a viable, Catholic alternative to the Anglican communion for Romeward-leaning Anglicans without appearing as if he is directly responding to the division in the mother Anglican Communion. He can open the door for the TAC, and simply leave it open for any other Anglicans who desire reunion.

8. Still, Rome does not ultimately need this flexibility. Its "Pastoral Provision" for Anglican-use parishes already provides a precedent for viable, Catholic alternatives to Anglican church life. Rome can simply extend the mantle of this provision over any new converts, and seem consistent, rather than scavengerous.

9. Pope Benedict will not turn away the TAC, period. His offer to the TAC may not be as generous as some in the TAC may desire, but Rome will not turn away anyone seeking a full restoration of the sacramental life. No ecumenical sensitivity is significant enough to stop the Catholic Church from assimilating the TAC. Every indication says the CDF is working diligently on a reunion plan; I continue to believe a decision on the TAC will come soon, perhaps in a few months.

10. A catastrophic collapse in the Anglican communion seems unlikely, but would force Rome to be more aggressive in its salvaging of Anglo-Catholics.

11. As for the personalities involved: I think Damian Thompson overtalks the tension between Benedict and Kasper. Kasper, in issuing an uiltimatum of his own to the Anglican communion, shows that he is prepared to alter his approach to, or abandon, ecumenism with Anglicans. Nevertheless, placing the matter of the TAC's reunion in the CDF's hand seems at first blush to undermine Kasper, though this may not be the case. It seems fairly appearent though that Benedict will use Kasper to advance pts. 1,2 of this list, and Levada to cover pt. 4-10. Also, Williams is not Benedict's close friend, as The Independent virtually suggests, though there is respect between the two.

12. I trust Damian Thompson's opinions more than those of other reporters, but cannot definitively trust anything until the Vatican or Anglican bishops actually make a definite announcement.

I welcome any corrections/alterations in the comments. I am trying to make sense of this situation as is, and have am limited only to the conflicting voices in the press for new data.

"Your Holiness"

in his most recent, conspiratorial diatribe against Pope Benedict XVI, Hal Meyer writes:

The term “Your Holiness” is a formal reference to the Pope as God, or perhaps as God in the Pope. To refer to someone as holy in this way is blasphemy.

For the record, Catholics do not believe that the pope is God, or that God dwells "in" the pope any more than He indwells all Christians (Rom. 8:9). Sadly, many Adventists recycle these baseless claims.

However, inasmuch as God indwells Christians, they are worthy to be called "holy" (1 Cor. 3:16-17). Indeed, Paul most often addresses the Christians to whom he writes as "holy ones" (Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2). Christian leaders, in particular, are called because of they are "holy" (Tit. 1:8). In view of all these factors, addressing a Christian leader as a "holy" conforms is entirely appropriate.

The form of address is not exclusive to the pope. Among Eastern Catholics, for instance, all patriarchs are addressed as "your holiness."

The Wait Begins

An interview with Bishop Burnham.

Linkettes

TIME Reports on the Pope's role as spoiler. Hat tip Thinking Anglicans (includes other great links).

Gay man sues Bible publishing companies for emotional trauma. Hat tip Oak Leaves.

Also: rumors of the next papal encyclical. From Catholic Online.

Kitty

A great post.

Anglican Catholicism: Rumors

Faith of our fathers, Mary’s prayers
Shall win our country back to Thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
England shall then indeed be free.

From Damien Thompson in the Catholic Herald (UK):

The really good news, from the Catholic point of view, is that Rome and the two flying bishops seem to have agreed on the bare outline of a deal between Romeward-bound Anglicans and the Vatican.

Thompson provides "informed guesses" about the shape of this agreement--a must read.

In his article, he describes the creation of an "apostolic administration" named something akin to the "Fellowship of St. Gregory the Great," which will remain under the oversight of a Roman Catholic bishop. It will protect the unique Anglican patrimony of ex-Anglicans. I love the name concept: Pope Gregory the Great commissioned the Benedictine monk St. Augustine to found the Catholic Church of England, and ordained him the first archbishop of Canterbury. The new FSGG would represent a new mission to the English, under the protection of a visionary pope. Key, however, is the caveat:

There will therefore be no Uniate Anglican-Rite Church; there is not enough demand for it, and it raises too many questions about celibacy and jurisdiction.

Many held out hope for an "Anglican-Rite Church", in keeping with the "united but not absorbed" principle articulated by Pope Paul VI and Michael Ramsey. However, there have always been issues with this proposal, since the Church of England is, traditionally, part of the Roman (Latin Rite) church. (As it is, many Anglo-Catholic parishes in England use the modern Roman rite anyways.) The Traditional Anglican Communion's (TAC) request for a reunion with the Catholic Church has also been discussed in the vocabulary of "uniatism"; the TAC are certainly large enough to request it, at 400,000 strong. However, many TAC bishops are married; they could not exercise an episcopal ministry in the Catholic or Orthodox churches. Accordingly, they could not lead a "united, but not absorbed" sui juris church, either. Existing (Roman) Catholic episcopal oversight is necessary.

Will this be enough to preserve the distinctive identity of Anglicanism? Thompson believes so:

That said, there could well be a future for the Fellowship of St Gregory once its original supply of ex-Anglicans has died out. The treasures our new brethren will bring with them - a poetic and contemplative spirituality, glorious prayers, fine music - will permanently enrich the Catholic Church in England; they belong to us.

We'll see. That last sentence is very Summorum Pontificium.

"Let Us Return to Egypt"

Resistance to the thought of a mass conversion of Anglo-Catholics.

Also:

Thee full statement of Bishop Burnham encouraging unity, and commentary from the Catholic Herald (UK).

The Hermeneutic of Continuity

Sometime ago, I criticized the Oak Leaves blog for the suggestion that Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity" threatened the II Vatican Council's Declaration of Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae). This sort of speculation (characteristic of Goldstein, for instance) is becoming more common among Adventists, forcing me to revisit this gross misrepresentation of Benedict's thought. In fact, in the one of the most important addresses of the first year of his papacy, Benedict XVI discussed his "hermeneutic" of "continuity" and explicitly applied it to the II Vatican Council's endorsement of religious freedom:

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Of note, Benedict classes the concept of religious liberty among those "principles" or "undercurrents" "that express the permanent aspect" of Catholic doctrine:

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all.

At the same time, she assures peoples and their Governments that she does not wish to destroy their identity and culture by doing so, but to give them, on the contrary, a response which, in their innermost depths, they are waiting for - a response with which the multiplicity of cultures is not lost but instead unity between men and women increases and thus also peace between peoples.

The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.

According to Benedict, the Church's "definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern though" was subject to change, insofar as those "certain essential elements of modern thought" themselves evolved. The Church was guided in its decision to accept or reject these evolving ideas based on its eternal principles, of which the holy father names two:

1. "The human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge"
2. "Religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction."

The Church once opposed modernity's embrace of the "social and historical necessity" of religious freedom because it had been "raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning." This historically particular vision of religious freedom was inappropriate in the Church's judgment, since it violated the Church's "permanent" "principles." However, the Church later defended another, appropriate conception of religious liberty, which merely protected the free exercise of the human conscience from external forms of coercion. This conception corresponded to an ancient tenet of Christian belief, proposed by "the teaching of Jesus himself." Its "recovery" forced the Church to "correct" "certain historical decisions." Accordingly, in Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity," the principle of religious freedom articulated by Vatican II defines "continuity," and guides the Church in its relation to historical ideas.

Incredibly, Adventist interpretations of Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity" never engage the actual speeches and writings of Pope Benedict, relying instead on their uninformed impressions of his words, divorced from their context. Many Adventists, for instance, suggest that, for Benedict, "continuity" involves restoring the persecution of non-Catholics. In fact, the opposite is true. "Continuity" demands that the Church cease to persecute others:

In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. (Dignitatis Humanae 12)

In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. (Ibid.)

The Oak Leaves post I criticized asked, "Is it any wonder that people wonder what the implications of that 'hermeneutic of continuity' might be for church and state and religious liberty?" In fact, it is a wonder, given the fact that Benedict himself has long since spelled out those implications. Will Adventists allow Benedict to interpret himself, or will they continue to propagate convenient misreadings of his views?

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

The Heart of a Pope

A Princess' View.

The Red Sea Parts

And it begins:

Bishop Burnham, one of two "flying bishops" in the province of Canterbury, has made a statement asking Pope Benedict XVI and the English Catholic bishops for "magnanimous gestures" that will allow traditionalists to become Catholics en masse.

He is confident that this will happen, following talks in Rome with Cardinal Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Kasper, the Vatican’s head of ecumenism. . . .

. . .

Anglican priests who are already married will not be barred from ordination as priests, though Bishop Burnham would not be able to continue in episcopal orders, as he is married and there is an absolute bar on married bishops in the Roman and Orthodox Churches.

Great humility and promise. Hat tip, Fr. Z.

"Not Whether, but How Many"

Video and text on the Vatican condemnation of the Church of England's decision, the prospect of defections to Rome by Anglican clerics, and attempts to retake the church from within.

Exodus Watch

Anticipation, and Commentary (on the Protestantism of the the CoE)

Nope. Wasn't Us.

Constantinople denies "dual unity" suggestion. Thank you, Rorate Caeli blog.

Extremities Tested

Early news of an Anglican compromise.

...Will the via media do it again?

False Impressions

Some time ago, Stephen Colbert interviewed a Hindu religionist, who proudly spoke of Hinduism's legacy of religious tolerance. I wish certain fundamentalist Hindus in India, threatened by the growth of Christianity, and responding with marked aggression against the Church, would manifest that allegedly characteristic tolerance.

Also, I wish presentations of Hinduism to Western audiences, always helpful and admirable, would not obscure the fact that Hinduism is plagued by the same intolerant impulses that have plagued Christianity. (The same applies to many presentations of other Eastern religions. The West suffers something of a "grass is always greener" syndrome.) Certain segments of the Hindu faith are quite reconciliatory towards other religions, and other segments of their own religion. However, as a Hindu friend of mine once corrected me: many sects of Hinduism nevertheless remain aggressive and fundamentalist.

Say the Magic Word

From the Orthometer blog.

Pray Today

...for conservative Anglicans. In the meanwhile, a piece that summarizes the obvious concerns of English Catholics.

Update on the Church of England

Compromise plans to be discussed tomorrow.

Endgame

Tomorrow the Church of England takes a momentous vote on women's bishops--one that may drive hundreds into the Roman Catholic Church. And as this vote approaches, Anglican bishops are meeting secretly with Rome to discuss their predicament, and perhaps, lay out an exit strategy.

Headline of the Week

From Yahoo! News:

Crumbling Pompeii in a "State of Emergency"

...Yeah.

Little late for that.

The Non-Adventist, Adventist Writer

Adventist scholarship has no "second voice" within the denomination. An Adventist cannot claim that the Adventist reading of Revelation 13 is deeply flawed and expect to retain his teaching position in the Adventist church, publish in mainstream Adventist journals (JATS, AUSS, Review, Liberty), or utilize Adventist presses (R&H, PP) to advance these views. I take no issue with this: the denomination has every right to control what is taught within it. But since the greater Christian world finds Seventh-day Adventism little more than a curiosity, and eschews interreligious criticism, a disenfranchised Adventist scholar has ways to advance his Adventist scholarship.

Many "second voice" Adventist scholars keep their criticisms private. Historically, a few publications continue to offer some forum for differing views (Spectrum, AToday), but they are not academic in tone, and limited in space. Other scholars leave the denomination (sometimes under compulsion), and must live out their lives outside the denomination, where their developing views no longer affect or even penetrate the Adventist world (e.g., Gladsen). A few form ministries outside the denomination to advance their views (Ford: Good News Unlimited). In many cases, however, these are defined by their critical or evangelistic character (Streifiling's cooperation with Ratzlaff's Life Assurance Ministries), undermining their academic tone.

I am two degrees, and several published articles, away from calling myself a "scholar." But my intellectual work centers on Adventist scholarship. I have an Adventist pedigree, and my work primarily concerns itself with criticisms of Adventist theology. I feel more comfortable critiquing the views of Shea, Maxwell, or Neall in the DARCOM series, than representing the views of Rahner or Balthasar. In this sense alone, I am more a student (or developing scholar) of Adventism than Catholicism, albeit in a "second voice" capacity. If asked to produce my most favorite DIES DOMINI essay, I would probably choose the existing draft of:

“It’s About Time”: Chronological Indications in Revelation 13 (37)

Unfortunately, this paper (which needs substantial development) is unlikely to penetrate the Adventist world, despite its valuable (and if I may add, decisive) criticisms of the historic Adventist reading of Rev. 13.

Why is all this relevant? As I prepare my MA Thesis, I am attempting to position and define myself as a potential scholar. Unfortunately, I realize that my deepest interests will continue to revolve around Adventist theological concerns. And yet, I doubt I will ever be able to integrate my interests in Adventism into my future scholarship. They will remain the stuff of websites like DIES DOMINI, or perhaps find their way into a book or two (anthology of my complete essays?). But my essays will probably never be published for an academic audience, particularly not within the Adventist sphere where its conclusions are most relevant.

Hm.

The Gift of Universal Primacy

I find the Anglican predisposition to universal primacy more developed than that existing among the Orthodox. From the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission document, The Gift of Authority:

45. In the course of history the synodality of the Church has been served through conciliar, collegial and primatial authority. Forms of primacy exist in both the Anglican Communion and in the churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Among the latter, the offices of Metropolitan Archbishop or Patriarch of an Eastern Catholic Church are primatial in nature. Each Anglican Province has its Primate and the Primates’ Meeting serves the whole Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury exercises a primatial ministry in the whole Anglican Communion.

46. ARCIC has already recognised that the “pattern of complementary primatial and conciliar aspects of episcope serving the koinonia of the churches needs to be realised at the universal level” (Authority in the Church I, 23). The exigencies of church life call for a specific exercise of episcope at the service of the whole Church. In the pattern found in the New Testament one of the twelve is chosen by Jesus Christ to strengthen the others so that they will remain faithful to their mission and in harmony with each other (see the discussion of the Petrine texts in Authority in the Church II, 2-5). Augustine of Hippo expressed well the relationship among Peter, the other apostles and the whole Church, when he said:

After all, it is not just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged preeminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, To you I am entrusting, what has in fact been entrusted to all. I mean to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: Receive the Holy Spirit; and straight away, whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained (Jn 20.22-23). This refers to the keys, about which is said, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven (Mt 16.19). But that was said to Peter ... Peter at that time stood for the universal Church.

...

47. Within his wider ministry, the Bishop of Rome offers a specific ministry concerning the discernment of truth, as an expression of universal primacy. This particular service has been the source of difficulties and misunderstandings among the churches. Every solemn definition pronounced from the chair of Peter in the church of Peter and Paul may, however, express only the faith of the Church. Any such definition is pronounced within the college of those who exercise episcope and not outside that college. Such authoritative teaching is a particular exercise of the calling and responsibility of the body of bishops to teach and affirm the faith. When the faith is articulated in this way, the Bishop of Rome proclaims the faith of the local churches. It is thus the wholly reliable teaching of the whole Church that is operative in the judgement of the universal primate. In solemnly formulating such teaching, the universal primate must discern and declare, with the assured assistance and guidance of the Holy Spirit, in fidelity to Scripture and Tradition, the authentic faith of the whole Church, that is, the faith proclaimed from the beginning. It is this faith, the faith of all the baptised in communion, and this only, that each bishop utters with the body of bishops in council. It is this faith which the Bishop of Rome in certain circumstances has a duty to discern and make explicit. This form of authoritative teaching has no stronger guarantee from the Spirit than have the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils. The reception of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome entails the recognition of this specific ministry of the universal primate. We believe that this is a gift to be received by all the churches.

...

60. The Commission's work has resulted in sufficient agreement on universal primacy as a gift to be shared, for us to propose that such a primacy could be offered and received even before our churches are in full communion. Both Roman Catholics and Anglicans look to this ministry being exercised in collegiality and synodality – a ministry of servus servorum Dei (Gregory the Great, cited in Ut Unum Sint, 88). We envisage a primacy that will even now help to uphold the legitimate diversity of traditions, strengthening and safeguarding them in fidelity to the Gospel. It will encourage the churches in their mission. This sort of primacy will already assist the Church on earth to be the authentic catholic koinonia in which unity does not curtail diversity, and diversity does not endanger but enhances unity. It will be an effective sign for all Christians as to how this gift of God builds up that unity for which Christ prayed.

61. Such a universal primate will exercise leadership in the world and also in both communions, addressing them in a prophetic way. He will promote the common good in ways that are not constrained by sectional interests, and offer a continuing and distinctive teaching ministry, particularly in addressing difficult theological and moral issues. A universal primacy of this style will welcome and protect theological enquiry and other forms of the search for truth, so that their results may enrich and strengthen both human wisdom and the Church's faith. Such a universal primacy might gather the churches in various ways for consultation and discussion.

McXico

McCain visits La Guadalupana! (I'm not sure why, but yeah!)

Things that Make Me Mad

Stealing children.

Live and in Color

As featured on the Spectrum blog, the Caricatures of Adventists blog. Fun, educational stuff.

Gaining Ground

I forgot to link to this a week and a half ago. The NPUC Adventist Pastors blog considers rumors of Bush converting to Catholicism a sign of the end.

The Mets

Reading through my the past few posts on this blog, I feel I have devoted to much time to thinking through Adventism and defending Catholicism, lol. (Should I have expected any differently on a blog Brandon entitled "SDA2RC?")

And so, I will write about the Mets again to clear my mind.

*sigh*

:-/

They need a rebirth, lol.

This concludes my thoughts on the Mets... yay, hope. And now, back to the discussing.