Dominus Iesus comes home to roost
Posted by Chris T. on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007
In light of the recent document released by the Roman church about ecumenism and the term "Church", I thought I'd revisit a contentious issue from last year. Back then, I commented on a trend among Indies of posting notices on parish and jurisdiction websites claiming recognition of our orders by Rome, based on a few sentences from the document Dominus Iesus.
The response to the fourth question in the new document makes quite clear, again, that Rome is speaking about the Eastern Orthodox when it refers to "these Churches, although separated, [which] have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist," not about us. This particular document has been seen as a reminder to RC ecumenists that Rome still considers Anglican orders suspect, in fact — orders which are extremely similar to our own. There has never, ever been any evidence that Rome considers us to have a valid priesthood and Eucharist as they do the Eastern churches. If the "Dutch Touch" is not good enough to legitimate Anglican orders in Rome's eyes, it's probably not good enough to validate ours. Pointing to that passage in Dominus Iesus is just begging the question.
We do, of course, have some more recent, explicitly Roman lines, like the Duarte Costa line, and unlike Anglicans, many of our bishops do intend to create priests in a sacrificial priesthood when they ordain, the major point of contention in Apostolicæ Curæ as I understand it. Many bishops (not the majority, I think) even use the rite directly out of the Roman Ceremonial of Bishops, presumably alleviating concerns about proper form (thanks to Laura for reminding me about this objection of the Roman church).
However, we have many of the same new barriers that the Anglicans have picked up since the nineteenth century when proper form and intent were seen as the major reasons Anglican orders were void. We have woman bishops, and any man ordained by one is presumably not really a priest in the eyes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy (in addition to the female priests Rome considers invalid because of their own gender). Some of us have partnered gay priests and bishops, novel theologies, and a host of other impediments to being considered valid. Citing this document as "proof" that Rome considers us more valid means throwing overboard all our brothers and sisters who are women clergy, clergy ordained by women bishops, or people engaged in stuff Rome finds offensive, in favor of hoped-for legitimacy in the eyes of a bigger church. This would be unconscionable even if Rome were waiting with open arms to consider the straight or celibate male priests and bishops among us "real," but it is all the more so considering that Rome is really looking East, not toward us, when it says these things about churches with a valid Eucharist and priesthood. Furthermore, it means turning our backs on churches like the Anglican Communion, which can sometimes be our ecumenical partner on the local level.
In my opinion, we can learn a fair bit from the Episcopal Church's response to this whole hubbub: We believe that our Orders are valid and that we are a "church" in every sense of the word. We should tell people the truth about our situation — the Roman hierarchy probably considers most of us invalid, most of the time. However, many of the faithful in that church know better, as do some of the priests. (I don't know any of their bishops personally, so I can't say whether a few of them are cheering on us on or not!) So we are happy to minister to all who need to experience God's grace, and we do so with confidence in our connection to the Apostles through centuries of bishops. We must stand by our friends in other catholic-but-not-Roman churches, all our clergy regardless of gender or God-pleasing sexual behavior, and all the people we have ministered to in the past, not chase after false hopes of being feted by the hierarchy of another church.
Filed in Ecumenism, Independent Catholicism, The Church |
9 Responses to “Dominus Iesus comes home to roost”
I agree — if we are satisfied that our orders are valid, and if we believe we are a true church, we should get on with ministry and not care how others view us.
One note about the Episcopal Church — while I agree that we should take a similar approach, it is important to note that the vast majority of that body do not regard us as valid, or at the very least as legitimate, although they may be too polite to admit it, and although they may be willing to rent or give us space to meet, and although there are individual priests who will worship with us, and although the occasional bishop has given faculties to one specific individual indie priest or another, chasing after the hopes of recognition from Canterbury or 815 is as worthless an endeavor as that of chasing after recognition from Rome.
I really think that the more we focus on building our own communities and the less we concern ourselves with what others are doing, the better off we’ll be.
*nod* I think to what extent specific Anglicans consider us valid or invalid or whatever depends a lot on the specific people and communities involved. But you’re absolutely right that we needn’t chase anyone’s recognition. (There’s always Utrecht in that equation, too — some folks are dying to validate themselves as really being Old Catholic, not Indie.)
But IME many more Episcopalians than Romans are willing to take us at least somewhat seriously — and it’s disrespectful to those folks to drop whatever work we’re engaged in with them (even if it’s just talking theology or sharing the Eucharist) to chase after Rome or play “we’re realer than you” games with Vatican documents.
I agree that it is best for ISM folks to be forthright about the fact that mainstream denominations (inc. Rome, TEC, etc) generally regard us as very suspect, if not entirely illegitimate and crazy.
I witnessed a very fine indie priest cut through spiralling discussions about who regards who as valid, by suggesting that people simply “Come and see.” If they meet Christ among us and find their calling in our company, that’s great. And they will only discover that (or not) through their own experience.
The “validity” of sacramental life among us independent types is not a mathematical equation that has to be worked out, or a conclusion to be deduced based on the rules of another denomination. Rather, whether priest or layperson, we discover it for ourselves, as we meet Jesus in living experience in the sacraments.
We needn’t be defined by how Rome views us. As much as we who are outside of Rome admire her, she isn’t the sum total of what it means to be church.
Somehow I imagine that God is doing something in Rome and also in the Indie churches, in the various corners of Protestantism and in the East and . . . (egad!) beyond the church walls! Look to what the Spirit is doing through your tradition and embrace it as legitimate, holy and blessed.
Furthermore, anyone who is trying to point to Dominus Iesus or anything else in an effort for legitimacy, is merely ceding to Rome the authority to decide who is or isn’t part of The Church, when the whole *point* is, or should be, that Rome is one (admittedly very large, very important) jurisdiction within a larger One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church—which almost has to be your position if you identify as a creedal catholic outside the RCC.
Good post and good comments thus far. I find it amusing when I read ISM websites that cite Vatican documents to justify their validity. I remember when I was at the Benedictine monastery I was at, that was a traditionalist community, I would pour myself over old canon law books to seek justification for “our schism,” in light of the “liberalization” of the Church. BLAH! While I miss some of the monks who were my friends, I don’t miss the hair splitting attempt at justification.
“By their fruits you will know them.” If we do good works then we will produce fruit others will be willing to eat.
Brilliant, Chris, thanks so much!
Bishop Laura
P.S. Whoops, should have been Chris+ since I was being formal.
Amen! Amen! Thanks, Chris, John & Tim for the great comments!