A Thinking Reed

What Kind of Unity?

Written by

Lee M.

in

When we talk about ecumenism and pray for the unity of the church, what kind of unity are we looking for? I don’t have any well-thought out ideas on the matter, but Josh left a comment outlining his idea of what unity might look like that I think merits a post of its own (edited slightly):

1) Any christian, of any church which can be said to be rooted in historical orthodoxy (as represented in the creeds, and the Councils of Nicea I, Constantinople I, & Chalcedon) can participate in the sacraments in any other Christian church on the planet. I think this might be expanded to include the Eastern dissident churches as well, due to their antiquity, and possibly Unitarians and Universalists since their roots are in the 16th century Reformed churches. This might also include Quakers but would probably exclude Mormons, JW’s etc.

2) Easy transfer of membership from one congregation to another. If I want to start going to another congregation of another denomination, I should be able to just get a letter or better yet electronic transfer of membership to my new congregation without having to go though a new membership process to get plugged into the ministries of my new church home.

3) Greater co-operation in evangelism, relief and health care work, education, economic development, leadership development, and other global missions activity. This might take the form of a global missions fund or series of funds all denominations contribute to and draw from.

4) Limited clergy sharing. In groups with few real doctrinal differences like Methodists and Episcopalians or Presbyterians and Congregationalists, there should be complete sharing. For other groups there could be limited sharing, at the discrecion of the bishop, presbytery or whatever in a particular locality.

5) A recognition of the see of Rome as the primus inter pares (nothing more), not only among the bishops per se but among individual church bodies.

6) All current denominations would maitain their individual seminaries, ecclesiastical bodies, magisteriums (sorry my Latin is rusty) and polity.

7) A new TRULY ecumenical council to iron all this out and find common ground on which to base this new unity, like the scriptures, Justification by grace through faith, the creeds, love, the Holy Spirit, Christ, etc. There should also be smaller synods to meet in various nations and regions from time to time and perhaps a regular schedule of councils to meet regularly.

Any thoughts?

Comments

5 responses to “What Kind of Unity?”

  1. Maurice Frontz

    #5, the primacy of the see of Rome, and its related issue, the doctrine of the ministry, is probably the key point. This is the reason why non Roman Catholics are not invited to the sacrament, because of the idea that being in Christ’s church fully and truly subsists in being in communion with a bishop who is in communion with the bishop of Rome. It is also the reason that Catholics who disagree with the Pope and the Magisterium on some issues can still be admitted to the Sacrament if they are not causing a scandal, because communion with the bishop of Rome is the key thing. After all these years, it is the “Power and Primacy of the Pope” that is still the stumbling block.

    JPII called for a reimagination of the papacy in Ut Unum Sint. But the historic Protestant churches in Europe and the United States are so far away from the Vatican’s position on almost everything that it is hard to imagine either party wanting to make it a priority to get this done. Maybe Benedict XVI, as a Western European with close personal ties to Protestants, will be able to close some of that gap, even as John Paul II, with close personal ties to Jews and Judaism, drew Rome closer to the Jews. That would truly be a miracle and the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Reply
  2. jack perry

    The solution has its merits, but it also sounds very Protestant. Catholics and “Eastern dissidents” (I’m assuming he means Orthodox) consider the sacraments to be essential to Christian life, but sacraments aren’t addressed at all. I think he needs to consider the problems involving the sacraments more deeply: different number, different meaning, and even questions of validity, to say nothing of intercommunion (common among Protestants, nonexistent outside Protestantism).

    Moreover, Unitarians explicitly deny the doctrine of at least two or three creed (isn’t that the point of their name?) so I don’t see how this could be open to them.

    Also, some “Eastern dissidents” are not even Orthodox; they dissented from some of the named councils (e.g. Coptics, Assyrians). Some of these are making progress in ecumenism; e.g., the Assyrians and Romans signed a common Christological declaration which overcame that divide (I’ve attended one ecumenical meeting between the two).

    Reply
  3. Joshie

    I think you are dead on. If the Roman church can return to the historical understanding of the nature of Rome’s primacy, that of first among equals, that would go a very long way toward some measure of visable unity.

    It must be said, though, that Eastern Orthodox and Armenians (I think) are allowed to recieve to eucharist in RCC churches. This may be a tiny opening, but it has to potential to be stretched to include Anglicans (due to their retention of the apostolic sucession)and eventually other Protestant groups as well. Let’s hope!

    Reply
  4. Joshie

    Eastern dissidents are not orthodox, they are dissidents. The Nestorian churches of Iraq and Iran, the Armenian church and the non-Malachite Coptics would be examples.

    Reply
  5. jack perry

    Au contraire, Assyrians (whom you call Nestorians, a term they reject) are allowed to receive Catholic Communion. (I’ve witnessed it.) As with the Orthodox and others, there must however be special circumstances, and they must have permission.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Joshie Cancel reply

More posts