The Church of England is not the first province in the Anglican Communion to make this decision. It does, however, come at a time of tension in the Anglican Communion. The Lambeth Conference meeting later this month will address numerous strains on the Communion, including those arising from the ordination of homosexuals and women, and the blessing of same-sex unions. Women's ordination has been a controversial issue in the Communion since 1976 when the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the USA decided to ordain women as priests. In the intervening years, many of the other provinces in the Communion have followed their path, including the Church of England in 1992. Once women were ordained as priests, questions were immediately asked about whether women would be ordained as bishops as well.

Ordination of women as priests and bishops not only strains the bonds of the Anglican Communion. It has also become an issue in the ecumenical dialogues with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. The 1976 and 1992 decisions to ordain women as priests led to Vatican clarifications of the Catholic position on women's ordination. The 2003 decision in the USA to consecrate a homosexual bishop led to a temporary cooling of the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. In 2006, Cardinal Walter Kasper from the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity was invited to speak to the Church of England's House of Bishops. He cautioned them that any movement towards the ordination of women as bishops would have disastrous effects on the continuing dialogue. Monday's decision has also led to a response from Kasper's office. The following short statement was issued in Tuesday's Vatican Information Service:

"We have regretfully learned the news of the Church of England vote that paves the way for the introduction of legislation which will lead to the ordaining of women to the episcopacy.
"The Catholic position on the issue has been clearly expressed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Such a decision signifies a break with the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the Churches since the first millennium and is, therefore, a further obstacle to reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.
"This decision will have consequences on the future of dialogue, which had up until now borne fruit, as Cardinal Kasper clearly explained when on 5 June 2006 he spoke to all of the bishops of the Church of England at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
"The Cardinal has been invited once again to express the Catholic position at the next Lambeth Conference at the end of July".

• The Catholic position on the ordination of women is outlined in two documents: Inter Insigniores (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976); and, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Pope John Paul II, 1994).
• See also Responsum ad Dubium: On Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 28, 1995). This text was the response to a query about the status of the 1994 teaching by John Paul II on the ordination of women: "Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith."
• Cardinal Walter Kasper's June 5, 2006 address to the Church of England's House of Bishops is entitled Mission of Bishops in the Mystery of the Church: reflections on the question of ordaining women to episcopal office in the Church of England.
• Nicholas Jesson's June 10, 2006 article in Ecumenism in Canada entitled Kasper's line in the sand? provides some further background on the importance of Monday's Church of England decision.

"Exodus. Numbers. Judges. As conservative parishes leave the liberal Episcopal Church, who shall inherit the real estate?"

This is an excellent article from LegalAffairs by Elizabeth Austin. It provides some insight into the role of bishops, hierarchy, and conciliar government in the Episcopal Church. It is a little different in every Anglican province, but Canada will have some similarities. The legal precedents will also be different. In Canada, many of the major legal precedents regarding church property were established following the 1925 church union that resulted in the United Church of Canada.

Despite recent indications that the Government of Canada might be relaxing its position on capital punishment, Canada's delegation voted in favour of the resolution.

The states that voted against the resolution are the following: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United States, Yemen, Zimbabwe. [Source: United Nations]

The WCC has participated in other global ecumenical processes. In 1968, the Joint Working Group between the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church was established to provide for the active participation of Catholics in the WCC-led ecumenical movement, while permitting the Catholic Church to remain outside the formal membership of the WCC. The regular meetings of the Christian World Communions has allowed the WCC to gather with international agencies representing the major Christian traditions.

In recent years there have been numerous changes to the WCC and its process. The Special Commission on Orthodox Participation assisted the WCC to move towards a consensus-based decision making process. The restructuring of the WCC has allowed churches to participate directly in those programmes that correspond to their own ecumenical vision, and to abstain from other programmes as appropriate.

In the mid-90s, Konrad Raiser, then the WCC general secretary, proposed a new ecumenical structure that would be more inclusive than the WCC. The WCC would not be absorbed into the new structure, but would remain one of the participating groups. Out of this proposal has developed the Global Christian Forum. The Forum had its inaugural meeting in Limuru, Kenya from November 6 to 9. Over these days, some 240 leaders from a broad range of churches, confessions and interchurch organizations from over 70 countries agreed to carry forward what they call "the Global Christian Forum process". This new forum will be an open space for encounter and dialogue with the stated goal to "to foster mutual respect and explore and address together common challenges".

The Christian traditions represented at the Forum meeting in Limuru were: the African Instituted churches, Anglican, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, Disciples of Christ (Churches of Christ), Holiness, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Moravian, Old Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Pentecostal, Reformed, Roman and Eastern Catholic, Salvation Army, Seventh-Day Adventist, the Society of Friends, and the United and Uniting churches.

The Forum process also involves a number of Christian organizations: regional ecumenical organizations, youth and student international movements, YMCA and YWCA, United Bible Societies, World Vision International, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, the World Evangelical Alliance, the World Council of Churches, and a number of forum-type organizations.

The participants issued two documents at Limuru: the Global Christian Forum Guiding Purpose Statement and a Message from the Global Christian Forum to Brothers and Sisters in Christ Throughout the World.

When I walk into my classroom this week to introduce my students to the ecumenical movement, I will need to add a mention of the Global Christian Forum to my lecture. The WCC describes itself as the "privileged instrument" of the ecumenical movement. Though the Global Christian Forum does not seek to become such an instrument, it wishes to be an open space for encounter and dialogue. The very scope of the forum participation is historic. Only time will tell whether this new ecumenical venture will become a new benchmark in church history.

The recent agreed statement between the two churches represents the first practical results of the Mississauga meeting in 2000 that charged the new commission with the task "to oversee the preparation of a Joint Declaration of Agreement, and promote and monitor the reception of ARCIC agreements, as well as facilitate the development of strategies for translating the degree of spiritual communion that has been achieved into visible and practical outcomes." (#12) In Reardon's response, she assesses the new statement in light of the mandate issued to IARCCUM by the bishops meeting in Mississauga.

Seven years later, the IARCCUM statement addresses the pastoral care of interchurch families in these terms: "Of particular concern in the area of ministry is the need to develop programmes of joint pastoral care for interchurch families (including marriage preparation) and to find ways to minister to their concerns." (#116) Reardon asks "what has become of Mississauga's specific reference to eucharistic life?" From the experience of IFIN, sacramental life is frequently a neuralgic issue for many couples and their children. Greater attention to this matter might have been expected. It is to be hoped that IARCCUM will return to this issue in their future deliberations.

In concluding her reflections, Reardon highlights a recommendation made by Bishop Bernard Longley in his commentary issued together with the IARCCUM statement. In reference to the joint pastoral care of interchurch families called for by IARCCUM in para. 116, Longley recommends: "Such pastoral care and marriage preparation would need to be attentive to the principles set forth in the Ecumenical Directory (143-160). It would help to highlight both the needs of interchurch families, and that much may be learnt from their experiences and insights, if the ecclesial significance of interchurch families could be further explored within our two Communions." (part III.3)

Attention to the ecclesial significance of interchurch families might address the ecumenical contribution that these families make through their witness to the unity of the church in their own lives. One promising possibility would be an ecumenical reflection on the theological significance of the family as "domestic church." This study is already underway in the IFIN Theological Working Group, however the theme must be addressed by the ecumenical dialogues and by the highest authorities of the churches themselves.

These words, taken from a new statement from the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), point to an increasing commitment of the Evangelical community to address social issues and structures. The Philadelphia Statement on Evangelical Social Engagement is a summary of the discussions at a consultation on faith, providence and political involvement held July 31, 2007 at Palmer (Eastern Baptist) Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. The consultation was conducted by the WEA's Theological Commission. The statement is not an approved policy statement of any Evangelical body.

Since the 1960s the Sojourners Community, led by the Rev. Jim Wallis, and numerous other groups have been the voice of the Evangelical social conscience. Some of these groups have experienced increasing attention from the media in the past few years. During the 2004 U.S. election, Call to Renewal promoted an active media campaign in the press, on tv and radio, and over the internet that declared "God is not a Republican or a Democrat!" Also in 2004, Ronald Sider published a book entitled "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience." This book called Evangelicals to be more vocal in their commitment for social concerns.

Since 2003 Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), has been promoting what he calls "creation care." This theologically articulated form of environmentalism has not been without controversy in the NAE constituency, but Cizik has stood his ground. He has insisted that Evangelicals take global warming seriously, and as a result has been challenged to resign by James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Although the NAE has not taken an official stance on global warming, other Evangelical leaders have established the Evangelical Climate Initiative in order to address these question in the Evangelical community.

Under the heading "A Call to Kingdom Living", the Philadelphia Statement states:

"there are important areas common to most societies where followers of Jesus Christ must pray and work for the kingdom, such as seeking human rights and religious liberty, working against corruption, violence and war, alleviating poverty, protecting the family and the sanctity of life, and caring for creation...

The church, as the primary community in which the kingdom of God is manifested, ought to embody the graceful principles of that kingdom and bear witness in life, word and action to the power of the gospel to transform lives and societies...

The church must not use political power merely as a means of self-protection, but should seek the benefit of the community in which it lives with humility repentance, and in a spirit of unity."

The agreed statement entitled "Growing Together in Unity & Mission" was released today by the Anglican Communion Office and the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The statement attempts to foster discussion and reflection on the work of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) over the past 40 years. However, the statement insists, "it is more than this: it is a call for action, based upon an honest appraisal of what has been achieved in our dialogue. Despite our present 'imperfect communion', there is, we feel, enough common ground to take seriously how we work together." Already, as Archbishop George Carey and Pope John Paul II noted, "in many parts of the world, Anglicans and Catholics, joined in one baptism, recognise one another as brothers and sisters in Christ and give expression to this through joint prayer, common action, and joint witness". This statement wishes to put flesh to the growing relationships between Anglicans and Roman Catholics. It offers numerous suggestions of ways that the two communities can implement the unity that has already been found through the past 40 years.

The practical focus and the episcopal character of the IARCCUM process means that the suggestions offered by this statement are frequently directed towards the bishops and other clergy of the two communions. The report calls for tangible means of expressing the unity given in Christ, but then it makes practical suggestions towards expressing this unity.

If the document's title sounds familiar to you, then you have been paying attention. The document was leaked last spring. Today's public release of the document includes the definitive text along with two commentaries, by Bishop Paul Richardson of Newcastle and Bishop Bernard Longley of Westminster. The commentaries are as interesting as the document itself. There is also a further text that was not released today. One of the Catholic consultants, Paul McPartlan, gave a preview of the document last January at the US's National Workshop on Christian Unity. McPartlan's paper has been published in "Ecumenical Trends".

"Ecumenism in Canada" has been given permission to post the IARCCUM document. Thus, you will find the texts here in a few days.

After considerable thought about whether there was anything further productive to say about the document and the controversy stirred up this summer, I have decided to share some of my initial reflections in the days following the publication of the "responsa." There are numerous additional perspectives that could be offered, many of which are available online.

I have to admit that there is nothing in the document that Benedict XVI had not said before as cardinal prefect of the CDF or as an academic theologian. It is problematic, and it is a shame that Cardinal Levada felt that he needed to say it again at this time, but it is nothing new. The point that I think we can emphasize is that because it isn't new, it does not end the long debate over the meaning of "subsistit." What was an open question last spring will remain an open question. An important clarification should be made here: the responsa is issued by the CDF under Levada's signature. It expresses the authority vested in the CDF, this is not a papal statement.

It is well known that Benedict XVI has long expressed the view that "subsistit" has an exclusive sense. Some scholars have suggested that this might be due to the translation into German where it does have such a connotation. In Latin and English, however it doesn't. A point that I made in my MA thesis and again in a paper in my first year of doctoral work, is that the term "subsistit" is also used in reference to the eucharist and the incarnation. We speak about the substance of the body and blood of Christ subsisting in the accidens of bread and wine. This is exclusive in the sense that it is only Jesus who subsists in this manner. However, Jesus subsists in the eucharist on this altar and that altar, at the same time. It is not part of Jesus that is found here, while another part is found there. There is only one Jesus, and there is only one eucharist, and each eucharist is a full and complete subsistence of Jesus' body and blood. Now consider the incarnation. The divine nature of the Son is incarnate in the person of Jesus. This is exclusive in the sense that there is only one Jesus, a Palestinian Jew from the 1st century. Both Jesus' divine and human human natures subsist in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. However, this subsistence transcends the exclusive particularity of Jesus in that he represents all human nature. Thus there is a complex interplay of exclusive and inclusive particularity in every subsistence.

In this new document, Levada argues that the full subsistence of the Church of Christ (that which we confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic) subsists in the Catholic Church. We still acknowledge the elements of sanctification and truth that are found in other Christian communities. Where Levada diverts from the basic position of many ecumenically-minded Catholics is that he says that these elements cannot properly be called a subsistence of the church. Yes, they are elements of the true Church of Christ. However, he insists that the term "subsists" is reserved for the fullness of the Church of Christ. They can have some -- or even very many (as Vatican II said) -- of the elements of sanctification and truth that make up the church of Christ (i.e the essence of the church). However, since unity is an essential element of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, unity (or communion) with the Catholic Church is essential. This is where all other churches are deficient.

The crux of this argument is the Catholic conviction that the full subsistence of the church of Christ is found in itself. That means that the Catholic Church enjoys all of the elements of the church of Christ, including unity. Thus, those who are not united (i.e. in communion) with the Catholic Church lack this one essential element. As the commentary points out, to suggest that other churches also possess this element of the church of Christ without being in communion with all others who possess this element would introduce division into the unity of the church. What Levada does not acknowledge is that this is based on a certain Thomistic notion about absolute predicates. In this philosophical context, unity would not be perfect if it did not encompass all. In order to be perfect, to be an absolute, it must be exclusive. Thus there is only one subsistence of the true church of Christ. All other elements of sanctification and truth impel these churches towards full communion with the Catholic Church.

The document also insists that Protestant churches lack the apostolic succession and therefore the sacrament of orders. Once again this is nothing new. Nor, in fact, is the Catholic Church the only one to take this position. The Anglican Communion is committed to the Lambeth Quadrilateral, which asserts that the historic episcopate (and thus the apostolic succession) is an essential element of the church. The Anglican-Lutheran full communion agreements were predicated on the ability of Anglicans to recognize in the Lutheran forms of governance a vestigial form of the historic episcopate. This was not a foregone conclusion however, and many Anglicans still consider it a bit of a stretch.

As difficult as this new document is, I would like to be a glass half-full kind of guy. I want to point out that the statement says (or implies) that the only deficiency in Orthodox churches is communion with Rome. The only two deficiencies in Protestant and Anglican churches is communion with Rome and the historic episcopate. This is a far cry from the positions of the past. Of course, the genre of the document does not actually allow these kind of interpretations. It only answers the issues raised in the questions. Its omissions are not as significant as omissions in other documents.

I also want to invoke the Thumper principle. At one point in the movie "Bambi," Thumper the rabbit says "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." That would have been good advice for Ratzinger seven years ago when Dominus Iesus came out, and it remains good advice to Levada today. Too bad they didn't ask my advice.

Under the new norms, priests no longer need to seek permission of their bishop to celebrate the 1962 missal, although the bishop remains the "moderator" of the liturgy in the diocese. The 1988 rule requiring that a specific number of lay people appeal to the bishop for a Latin liturgy is removed. No numerical requirement is given, although the parish pastor and bishop are asked to ensure that there is a stable community of faithful before a Latin liturgy is added to the parish schedule. The priest is required to ensure that the care for the adherents to the earlier rite "harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish ... avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church."

Other norms permit the use of the 1962 missal on weekdays and once on Sundays and feastdays. Priests are encouraged to provide weddings, baptisms, penance, and anointing of the sick using the earlier rites. Unlike the new rite which permits the bishop to delegate a parish priest to celebrate confirmation (normally for adult initiation at the Easter Vigil), the motu proprio indicates that only the bishop may celebrate the earlier form of the sacrament of confirmation. In an explanatory note accompanying the motu proprio it is noted that the earlier rite did not permit concelebration. It is also noted that the 1962 missal says nothing about the direction of the altar.

Benedict also makes provision for the introduction of some aspects of the later post-conciliar rite to be incorporated into the 1962 missal. Specifically, he provides permission for the introduction of the new prefaces of the Mass and those for newer saints to be added to the 1962 rite. Presumably these would use the Latin text of the new liturgy.

One of the concerns raised in the months leading up to today's release of Benedict's motu proprio was the use of sections of the pre-conciliar rite that violate certain commitments of Vatican II. Of most concern in this regard is the use of Good Friday prayers that refer to the "perfidious Jews" (Latin: perfidis=faithless). There is no mention of this issue in the motu proprio, or in Benedict's accompanying letter to the bishops of the world. However, the permission to celebrate the Latin liturgy according to the earlier rite applies only to the 1962 missal. In 1960, John XXIII removed the word "perfidious" from the Good Friday prayer. This does not completely resolve the problem, since the remainder of the prayer presents Jews as blind and in darkness, and the prayer could be open to a supercessionist interpretation. To resolve this problem, a bishop or the bishop's conference could probably substitute a 1965 revision of the prayer or simply replace all of the Good Friday prayers with those of the 2002 typical edition.

The history of rupture

In Saturday's new motu proprio, entitled Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI established new norms for the celebration of the 1962 missal that replace those issued in 1988. Under the new norms, the 1962 missal becomes an "extraordinary form" of the Roman liturgy. Benedict is very careful to present the 1962 missal and the post-Vatican II "ordinary form" of the missal as two forms of the same Roman liturgy.

The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

For many years Benedict has been concerned about the way that we understand the reforms of Vatican II. For many Catholics, the council served as a turning point in their religious life. Popular piety changed dramatically during the 1960s. In many respects this was a result for social changes occurring in the wider societies in which Catholics live. However, the conciliar reform of the liturgy is frequently identified as the most visible and dramatic of Catholic changes. Most Catholics old enough to remember the pre-conciliar liturgy will remember the introduction of the vernacular (local) languages, the altar moving away from the wall, and the priest facing the people. More subtle changes occurred in the introduction of a three year lectionary for Sundays and a two year lectionary for weekdays. This replaced a single one year lectionary that is incorporated into the pre-conciliar missal. In the new liturgy there are more scriptural readings, more participation of the lay people, and more varied prayers with the eucharistic rite. Overall the liturgy was significantly simplified. All of these changes have led to a tendency of Catholics to understand the council as introducing a rupture in the history of the church and of the liturgy. This is a central concern in Benedict's new document.

Benedict studiously avoids referring to the 1962 missal as the Tridentine Mass. The term technically refers to the liturgy reformed by Pope Pius V following the Council of Trent, but it has been used to refer more widely to the liturgy used in the period ending with Vatican II. Benedict opts to refer only to the 1962 edition of the missal, which was already a significant revision of the missal. He correctly points to a long history of liturgical revision that dates from the early church. Significant developments in the history are mentioned by Benedict ending not with the 1970 missal of Pope Paul VI, but the 2002 revision of that missal by Pope John Paul II. In this way, Benedict presents the liturgical history as a continuous process without rupture and the liturgy itself a unified Rite.

Benedict has a wider concern about how church history is presented, and particularly the way that Vatican II is frequently presented as a rupture in doctrinal development in ways quite similar to the liturgical history. As the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger argued strenuously with what has been called the "Bologna School." This group of theologians and church historians led by the late Giuseppe Alberigo of the University of Bologna has defended rupture interpretations for many decades. Ratzinger has written that this introduces a discontinuity in sacred tradition. The importance of tradition for Catholic theology is challenged if the contemporary church is interpreted as a product of the 1960s reforms.

Links:
Summorum Pontificum (Latin text)
Summorum Pontificum (unofficial English translation)
Letter to the bishops of the world to accompany the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum
Excerpts from the Explanatory Note on the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (unofficial English translation)

On Sunday morning following the celebration of the eucharist, the debate continued. The third resolution was approved, affirming that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church in Canada. As observers have noted, this establishes a theological space for gay and lesbian persons within the Anglican Church. However, the General Synod rejected the resolution tabled at the 2004 General Synod: to affirm the authority and jurisdiction of individual dioceses to authorize same-sex blessings "with the concurrence of the diocesan bishop, and in a manner which respects the conscience of the incumbent and the will of the parish." Both lay and clergy delegates supported the motion, but the House of Bishops was split 19 in favour to 21 opposed. The resolution required the support of all three orders to pass. The result of these resolutions is that the blessing of committed same-sex unions is not permitted in the Anglican Church of Canada at this time.

In 2002, the synod of the Diocese of New Westminster (Vancouver) approved the blessing of same-sex unions for the third time, and the bishop Michael Ingham concurred. Since then same-sex blessings have been permitted in that diocese in parishes that have studied and approved such blessings. It remains to be seen whether such blessings will continue after the General Synod rejected the resolution affirming the authority and jurisdiction of dioceses in this matter. The House of Bishops instituted a moratorium on same-sex blessings a number of years ago. The Anglican Journal reports that a number of bishops have expressed concern about possible disregard of the General Synod decision. An additional resolution has been brought to the General Synod from the Diocese of New Westminster to affirm the continuing practice of the Diocese of New Westminster until such time as the General Synod takes further action on the matter.

See:
Synod narrowly defeats same-sex blessings (Anglican Journal)
Emotions run high after blessings defeated (Anglican Journal)
Same-sex blessings not in conflict with core doctrine (Anglican.ca)
General Synod 2007 - Resolutions
St. Michael's Report

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Winnipeg, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada at its National Convention has elected the Rev. Susan Johnson as its new national bishop. Johnson succeeds Bishop Raymond L. Shultz who has been national bishop since 2001. The bishop-elect has been Assistant to the Bishop of the Eastern Synod since 1994. She has also served as vice-president of the ELCIC from 2001 to 2005 and as an advisor to the Lutheran World Federation Council since 1998.

The Anglican Journal report of the election of Bishop Hiltz as primate is now available online.
Further information about Bishop-elect Johnson can be found in the ELCIC news report.

It should be remembered that, in his 1950 encyclical Humanae Generis, Pope Pius XII taught that the "hypothesis" of evolution does not conflict with Catholic faith so long as it does not deny "that the spiritual soul is immediately created by God." In 1996, John Paul II went further and stated that new knowledge leads to the recognition that the theory of evolution is more than an hypothesis. He pointed out, as many biologists would also insist, that there are "theories" of evolution rather than one theory.

In this latest publication, Benedict reportedly praises the progress achieved by science but cautions that evolution raises philosophical questions that science alone cannot answer. Despite some expectations to the contrary, he did not endorse intelligent design, the latest fad among creationists. Instead he cautions that science and philosophy must engage in their respective inquiries in such a way that faith is not excluded. In a comment on John Paul II's 1996 statement, Benedict apparently wrote: "The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this. But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

The book, entitled Schöpfung und Evolution, was published Wednesday by Sankt Ulrich Verlag. In addition to Benedict's contributions, the book contains papers prepared by members of the Schülerkreis. Translations in other languages will be forthcoming.

Another papal book will also be released this spring. Jesus of Nazareth: From the baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration will be released on May 15. It is already available for pre-order at major bookstores and through Amazon.ca.

Dr. Vandervelde will be remembered fondly by all his students and colleagues. The WEA announced his death with these words: "We are grateful to have had his input and influence. We are comforted to know that he has gone on before us and now belongs to the "cloud of witnesses" cheering us on (Hebr.12,1 and Hieronymus)" A brief obituary and photos of George are available on the Institute for Christian Studies website.

Among the issues that ROCOR defended in its separation from the Moscow Patriarchate, the most significant continuing concern is the involvement of the Russian Church in the ecumenical movement. ROCOR has consistently rejected ecumenism as a form of syncretism. The reconciliation of the two Russian hierarchies has only been possible based on a statement of principles issued by the Moscow Synod in 2000 which carefully limited the areas of ecumenical work that the Russian Church would be involved in. The Russian Church continues to be a member of the World Council of Churches, however it has indicated that it does not consider the WCC to have any ecclesiological significance. In a joint statement, the two Russian church bodies declare:

"Orthodox Christians insist on their right to freely confess their faith in the Orthodox Church as the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church without conceding the so-called 'branch theory' and definitively reject any attempts to dilute Orthodox ecclesiology."

At the same time, the joint statement allows for the possibility of cooperation with non-Orthodox:

"in helping the unfortunate and by defending the innocent, in joint resistance to immorality, and in participating in charitable and educational projects. It may be appropriate to participate in socially meaningful ceremonies in which other confessions are represented. In addition, dialog with the non-Orthodox remains necessary to witness Orthodoxy to them, to overcome prejudices and to disprove false opinions. Yet it is not proper to smooth over or obscure the actual differences between Orthodoxy and other confessions."

Another major issue that ROCOR has championed is the independence of the church from the state. ROCOR during a period in which the Soviet authorities dominated the Moscow Patriarchate and its Synod. The diaspora experience, particularly in North America, encouraged a more critical stance of the church towards the state. The two church bodies issued a joint statement in 2004 entitled "On the Relationship Between the Church and State", indicating that:

"The Church is called upon to exert spiritual influence on the state and its citizens, to confess Christ, to defend the moral foundations of society. By interacting with the state for the good of the people, the Church, however, cannot assume civil functions for itself. The state must not interfere in the inner structure, administration or life of the Church. The Church must support all good initiatives of the state, but must resist evil, immorality and harmful social phenomena and always firmly confess the Truth, and when persecutions commence, to continue to openly witness the faith and be prepared to follow the path of confessors and martyrs for Christ."

A summary of the work of the joint commissions between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR can be found on the website of the Moscow Patriarchate. The English text of the "Act of Canonical Communion" and an addendum can also be found on the same website. All of these materials, as well as the joint documents of the commissions between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate can be found on the ROCOR website.

The criticisms of their first statement do not seem to have deterred the ECT group from further dialogue. They have since produced a 1997 statement on justification by faith entitled "The Gift of Salvation;" a 2002 statement on scriptural authority entitled "Your Word is Truth;" a 2003 statement entitled "The Communion of Saints;" a 2005 statement on Christian life entitled "The Call to Holiness;" and this most recent offering entitled "That They May Have Life."

This sixth ECT statement seems to jump back to the co-belligerence encouraged by the first ECT statement. Unlike the intervening statements, this recent text appears to be addressed to US society rather than to the churches. The primary focus of the text is on what is sometimes called a "culture of life." Pope John Paul II coined the phrase "culture of death" to describe his perception of western society overcome by materialism, militarism, devaluation of human life and dignity, and a "contraceptive mentality." In contrast, a "culture of life" expresses concern for those who are poor, marginalized, weak, or ill. It expresses special concern for children, disabled, and elderly who are unable to speak for themselves. The participants affirm:

We are morally responsible, however, for the protection and care of life created in the image and likeness of God. The commandment "You shall not kill" is the negatively stated minimum of what we owe to our fellow human beings.

A larger portion of the new ECT text is devoted to the American debate over abortion, however the document also addresses capital punishment and other concerns. Unfortunately, the ECT participants are unable to make a breakthorugh or show any leadership towards resolving the differing views of Christians on capital punishment. The participants appear satisfied with the observation that there is a "widespread perception that capital punishment is in tension, if not conflict, with a consistent ethic of life."

Aside from passing references to concerns about poverty, the document offers no reflections on the issue. It also fails to address the militarism of American society that has rejected dialogue and development as a means of reducing the causes of terrorism. Although addressed to American society, there is no reflection about the place of the US in the world, or how Christian responsibility for others might lead to an American foreign policy that supports development in the global South. Most strikingly, despite the document's clear dependence on John Paul II's concern about a "culture of death," the participants make no comment on the materialism of western society.

While this latest document is to be welcomed for its clear articulation of certain aspects of the "culture of life," and for the continuing efforts of Evangelicals and Roman Catholics to speak together on issues of shared concern, it is disappointing for many of the same reasons that the first ECT statement was criticized. There is very little contribution made here to the ecumenical rapprochement between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Many of the issues that the participants agreed upon in this statement will divide them from others within their own churches. This statement will likely be received as just another contribution to the abortion debate by the Religious Right. To me, it seems like like they weren't reaching high enough.

The ECT document can be found online at First Things or in print at First Things 166 (October 2006): 18-27.

Dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Muslim community occurs in a variety of places, much of it at the local level. At an international level, dialogue between the two communities is more difficult because there is no Muslim leader or authority that can speak on behalf of all Muslims. In the hope of building a basis for future dialogue, in 2002 the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar agreed to establish a dialogue. Al-Azhar is the premier Egyptian university and centre of Islamic scholarship. It is attached to the Al-Azhar mosque in Cairo. The mosque and the university were established in the 10th century CE. Al-Azhar is recognized in the Sunni Muslim community as an authority in Islamic jurisprudence. Al-Azhar has also formed a joint committee for dialogue with the Vatican.

The dialogue also noted that the European Convention on Human Rights recognizes limitations on the freedom of expression for the good of the wider community. They called upon the United Nations to draw up a convention, modelled upon the European Convention, that would set out conditions under which Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights might be limited in respect for religious sensitivities.

The communiqué from the dialogue has been published by the Anglican Communion News Service. The dialogue committee plans to meet again in London in autumn 2007.

The General Council is held every three years as the highest decision making body in the United Church of Canada (UCC). The meeting August 13 to 19 was in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Approximately 400 commissioners from across Canada participated in the General Council meeting.

Divestment strategies are somewhat more sophisticated than simple boycotts. The strategy was used by churches and governments to combat apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s and early 90s. Other divestment plans have also shown some success. The Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility has successfully engaged in dialogue with corporations through the use of shareholder resolutions and divestment. The recent divestment strategies targeting Israel have called for selective divestment, meaning that the church would only dispose of investments in corporations that were promoting or supporting the Palestinian occupation. Moreover, divestment would occur in stages following a dialogue with the corporation, and only when the corporation refused to reform their corporate behaviour. Divestment has been encouraged by the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Centre in Palestine. A conference on divestment was held in Toronto in October of 2005. A report on the conference by Dr. Stuart Brown, former director of the Canadian Centre for Ecumenism, is found elsewhere on this website. "A Call for Morally Responsible Investment" was issued by the Sabeel Centre in preparation for the 2005 conference.

The United Church proposal for divestment was modified significantly during the General Council meeting. The final proposal approved Thursday drops the call for divestment, in favour of investment in corporations that are engaged only in peaceful pursuits in the disputed region. The resolution invites the members, congregations, and other church bodies to:

• continue to work with the Jewish and Arab communities to promote peace and understanding and the end of hostilities in the Middle East
• continue to denounce acts of violence perpetrated against persons on all sides of the conflict
• adopt a pro-investment strategy with companies that engage in ethically responsible business, and that contribute to peace and a secure and economically viable Palestinian state alongside a secure and economically viable State of Israel
• make financial investments, as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, with Canadian and international corporations and companies that are engaged only in peaceful pursuits in the region

Non-peaceful pursuits would include:

• providing products, services, or financial support to groups that engage in violence against Palestinian or Israeli persons
• providing products, services, or technology to any government or organization that refuses to recognize the legitimate rights of the State of Israel, including its right to exist as a Jewish state
• providing products, services, or technology that sustain, support, or maintain the occupation
• having established facilities or operations on occupied land
• providing products, services, or financial support for the establishment, expansion, and/or maintenance of settlements on occupied land or settlement-related infrastructure
• providing finances or assisting in the construction and/or maintenance of the separation barrier within occupied territories

An Official Common Affirmation was signed on July 23 at the World Methodist Conference in Seoul, South Korea. The common affirmation of the three signatory churches welcomes the Methodist statement and affirms that it "demonstrates Methodist agreement with the consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification" as expressed in the JDDJ. The common affirmation ends with a commitment to further dialogue towards a deeper understanding of the doctrine of justification.

The "Methodist Statement" and the "Official Common Affirmation" of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification can be found online at www.lutheranworld.org/What_We_Do/OEA/Methodist-Statement-2006-EN.pdf.]]> http://ecumenism.net/archive/blog/2006/08/methodists_affirm_joint_declaration_with_lutherans_and_catholics.htm http://ecumenism.net/archive/blog/2006/08/methodists_affirm_joint_declaration_with_lutherans_and_catholics.htm documentsstatementsdialogueecumenismchristian unityjustificationmethodistlutherancatholic Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:00:00 -0600 Canadians spend more on gambling than they do on education or personal care. According to a report from the Vanier Institute of the Family, legal gambling in Canada attracts $1,080 per household compared to $1,007 for education or $834 for personal care. Gambling losses in 2003-2004 amounted to $596 per adult, or nearly $50 per person per month. Using data from Statistics Canada's 2002 "Canadian Community Health Survey," the Vanier Institute reports that almost 1.2 million Canadians exhibit at least one indication of problem gambling behaviour -- roughly enough persons to fill a major Canadian city.

The report, entitled "Gambling with our (Kids’) Futures: Gambling as a family policy Issue" was written by Arlene Moscovitch, and is available online or in print through the Vanier Institute. The report argues that gambling is more than just a personal problem. Treating problem gambling as an individual pathology discounts its impact on the families of the problem gambler, as well as the wider society. Recent research supports a move towards a public health model that considers the impact of gambling on the community. Social policy relating to alcohol and tobacco has been greatly strengthened by a similar move to a public health model.

In related news, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary has sent a letter to each Catholic school in the Calgary separate school system critical of a recent decision of the school board. In late 2005, Bishop Frederick Henry asked the Catholic school board to put an end to school-based fundraising practices that involve morally repugnant forms of gambling. On May 31, 2006 the board adopted a task force report on school-based fundraising. One recommendation of the report rejected the bishop's request, allowing the continued use of fundraising under guidelines to be established by the school district in consultation with school councils and principals. In Bishop Henry's recent letter, dated June 20, the bishop said: "The acceptance of the Task Force's recommendations constitutes a failure in Catholic leadership, pays lip-service to the pillar of 'Catholicity,' and is equivalent to Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage (cf. Gen.25: 29-34)."

Bishop Henry's reference to canon 803 reveals a substantial tool in his control. Canon 803 #3 declares that "no school may bear the title Catholic school without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority." Catholic schools receive their public funding through constitutional measures directed to the faith community. If the bishop were to withdraw his recognition of a particular school the public funding for the school would be in jeopardy. This does not appear to be the bishop's intent, however he has indicated a willingness to withdraw diocesan and parish support for schools that continue to fundraise using gambling.

Rejecting the board's decision completely, the bishop stated: "The School Board, the individual schools, and related parent councils and societies must get out of bingo and casino gambling fundraising activities. There is no question as to 'what' has to be done but there is room to negotiate 'how' and 'when.'" Bishop Henry announced that he will not preside at September's opening liturgy for the Calgary Catholic School District. He also served notice that if "satisfactory solutions are not found, other consequences will also be forthcoming in September including the black-listing of schools that engage in immoral fund-raising."

In the weeks since the bishop's letter, the debate over gambling in Alberta has heated up. Editorials in the Calgary Herald have supported Bishop Henry, and people in the pews appear to be supportive as well. Despite initial defiance from the school board, Cathie Williams, the chair of the board, has asked schools to look for alternative methods of fundraising and has asked for a meeting with Bishop Henry to find a resolution of the dispute. In the meantime, the Edmonton Catholic school board has met to discuss alternatives to school-based fundraising. Edmonton is not within Bishop Henry's diocese, but the Calgary dispute clearly has a spill-over into neighbouring dioceses.

This dispute over gambling is not new to the Diocese of Calgary. In 1998, Bishop Henry made substanially the same request that he made last December, allowing the schools some time to wean themselves from gambling revenue. At the same time, a joint pastoral letter entited "The False Eden of Gambling" by the Alberta bishops asked the Knights of Columbus and other Catholic groups to withdraw from the operation of bingo halls and other support of gambling, and to wean themselves from gambling revenue. Since 1998, most school boards and other Catholic agencies have followed the bishop's request. The Alberta Knights of Columbus decided in 2004 to move away from gambling as a source of revenue. The Calgary and Edmonton school boards remain among the few Catholic institutions in Alberta that have not ended their addiction to gambling.

Resources:

• "School-Based Fundraising: A Briefing Paper", prepared for the Calgary Catholic School District, May 31, 2006. [PDF] A condensed version is available here.
• "Decision Time", a message from Bishop Frederick Henry to the Catholic school board, schools, and members of the Calgary Catholic community.
• "Gambling with our (Kids') Futures: Gambling as a family policy Issue", a report by Arlene Moscovitch to the Vanier Institute for the Family.
• Alberta Gambling News, an aggregate of news articles in Albertan and major Canadian news media.
• "The False Eden of Gambling", a pastoral letter by the bishops of Alberta, January 12, 1998.

As Kasper recognised, the decision to ordain women to the episcopate is intimately connected to the decision to ordain women to the diaconate and priesthood. This is a decision taken by some provinces of the Anglican Communion as far ago as 1976. In 1992, the first women were ordained in the Church of England. However, the three orders of ministry are intimately connected, as there is only one sacrament of ordination. Thus, admission to the diaconate and priesthood implies the possibility of admission to the episcopate. However, Kasper insisted, the episcopate has a special character as a ministry of unity. Drawing upon the reflections of Vatican II on the college of bishops, Kasper explained:

Collegiality was not understood simply in terms of an ultimately non-binding collegial frame of mind; collegiality is rather a reality ontologically grounded in the sacrament of episcopal consecration, the shared participation in the one episcopal office, which finds concrete expression in the collegialitas affectiva and in the collegialitas effectiva. This collegiality is of course not limited to the horizontal and synchronic relationship with contemporary episcopal colleagues; since the Church is one and the same in all centuries, the present-day church must also maintain diachronic consensus with the episcopate of the centuries before us, and above all with the testimony of the apostles. This is the more profound significance of the apostolic succession in episcopal office.

Kasper explained that one of the more hopeful discoveries of ecumenical dialogue between Anglicans and Roman Catholics has been the extent to which a common understanding of episcopacy and episcopal ministry are shared between the two churches. Indeed, he said, the understanding of the church as koinonia is found in the ARCIC dialogue from the beginning. It is central to Bishops in Communion: Collegiality in the Service of the Koinonia of the Church, a document prepared by the Church of England's House of Bishops, and in the Windsor Report, prepared for the Anglican Communion by the Lambeth Commission on Unity.

The clarity of Kasper's explanation was obviously intended to ensure that there was no misunderstanding between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. Kasper insists that if the Church of England takes the step of ordaining women that the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church will continue. However, he cautions, the quality of the dialogue would change. The Roman Catholic and Anglican churches share the conviction that full ecclesial communion, cannot exist without full communion in the episcopal office.

Ecumenical dialogue in the true sense of the word has as its goal the restoration of full church communion. That has been the presupposition of our dialogue until now. That presupposition would realistically no longer exist following the introduction of the ordination of women to Episcopal office.

Kasper also referred to the famous "via media" articulated throughout Anglican history. The decision to ordain women to the episcopate would draw Anglicans a considerable distance closer to the churches of the 16th century, and thus away from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. The decison facing the Church of England is a historic one. In Kasper's view, such a decision "would mean turning away from the common position of all churches of the first millennium." Alluding to the so-called "ecumenical winter," Kasper cautioned that the decision could "lead not only to a short-lived cold, but to a serious and long-lasting chill." It should be remembered that only a few years ago a similar caution was offered by Kasper regarding the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. The chill from that occasion has not worn off, though the work of the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) has resumed and ARCIC II has published its agreed statement on Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ.

The unusual frankness of Kasper's address had the character of drawing a line in the sand. The commitment of ecumenical partners to a common life together makes it essential that each speak the truth in love. However, it is interesting that Kasper does not acknowledge that for some Anglicans the decision to ordain women is rooted in biblical understandings of ministry, the human person, and justice. Kasper refers to the Vatican's official teaching documents on women's ordination: the letter Inter Insigniores written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1976 in response to the priestly ordination of women in Canada and the U.S.; and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, written by Pope John Paul II in 1994 in response to the Church of England's decision to ordain women to the diaconate and priesthood. Acknowledging that many historically conditioned views of the church are no longer taught, Kasper suggests that the position on women's ordination is "not predicated on contemporary concepts alone but in essence on theological arguments." Thus he suggests that Anglicans should not presume that the Roman Catholic position will one day revise its position. "The Catholic Church is convinced that she has no right to do so." The astute will note that Kasper does not commit himself wholeheartedly to the notion that this teaching is an infallible or irreformable teaching.

It should be noted that recent official Roman Catholic teaching on the ordination of women has been articulated primarily in response to the 1976 and 1992 developments within the Anglican Communion. While Kasper does not appear to be introducing any new teaching, the clarity of his presentation has laid bare the options before the Anglican Communion on this issue. One particularly intriguing question was addressed by Kasper however. When the Church of England decided to ordain women, the response from the Vatican was far more serious than fifteen years earlier when the Canadian and American provinces had made the same decision. Why was the Church of England's decision so significant? Kasper explains that the Roman Catholic Church recognises the unique role that the Church of England plays in the Anglican Communion:

it is the church from which Anglicanism derives its historical continuity, and with whom the divisions of the 16th century are most specifically addressed; it is the church led by the Archbishop of Canterbury who, in the words of the Windsor Report, is 'the pivotal instrument and focus of unity' within the Anglican Communion; other provinces have understood being in communion with him as a 'touchstone of what it was to be Anglican' (99); finally, it is the church which we in continental Europe directly associate with Anglicanism, in part because of your many Church of England chaplaincies spread throughout the continent. For us, the Church of England is not simply one province among others; its decisions have a particular importance for our dialogue, and give a strong indication of the direction in which the Communion as a whole is heading.

Cardinal Walter Kasper's June 5, 2006 address to the Church of England's House of Bishops is entitled Mission of Bishops in the Mystery of the Church: reflections on the question of ordaining women to episcopal office in the Church of England.

Highlighting the ecumenical potential of Christians marrying across denominational barriers, Benedict said: "The decision [to enter an interchurch marriage] can lead to the formation of a practical laboratory of unity. For this to happen there is need for mutual goodwill, understanding and maturity of faith in both partners, and also in the communities from which they come. ... My wish is that in this delicate area, reciprocal trust and cooperation between the churches may grow, fully respecting the rights and responsibilities of the spouses for the faith formation of their own family and the education of their children."

Benedict also emphasized the reciprocal responsibilities of the churches involved in pastoral care of these families, and of the spouses themselves. As affirmed by the Vatican's 1993 ecumenical directory, each spouse has a moral obligation to raise their children in Christian faith. These moral responsibilities, when codified in church laws, can lead to conflicts between the spouses to the detriment of the unity of the marriage. The 1993 directory affirms that in Roman Catholic canon law no penalty is incurred by the Catholic spouse when his or her children are raised in another church for the sake of marital unity. In his address in Warsaw, Benedict reaffirms the rights and responsibilities of each spouse and the corresponding responsibility of the churches to respect the unity of the marriage.

The papal encouragement for joint pastoral care and the recognition of the ecumenical significance of interchurch couples repeats the earlier affirmations of John Paul II's encyclical Ut Unum Sint in 1995, and the work of the Interchurch Families International Network.

The full text of Benedict's May 25, 2006 address is available on the Vatican website.

The above comes from Sandro Magister, an Italian journalist. The full text can be found at http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it. Magister's article includes a translation of a major piece of Dario Antiseri's original journal article.

The study process, entitled Faith Talk II: A draft statement of faith for discussion and response, seeks responses from congregations, groups, and individuals by October 2005. In 2000, the 37th General Council described the proposed draft statement as "honouring the diversity of our church and acknowledging our place in a pluralistic world and in an ongoing and developing tradition of faith." They further instructed the Committee on Theology and Faith to "give priority to engaging the church in conversation on the nature of the church (ecclesiology), ministry and sacrament." The committee intends to revise the current draft in light of responses from the wider church, and to submit the proposed new statement of faith to the 39th General Council in 2006.

I wonder whether this gives us some insight into Benedict's character, or at least some insight into his attitude towards married life. He ends his comments by calling for more vocations to the priesthood and religious life. That's not exactly a rousing endorsement of marriage.

We should remember that Benedict's favourite theologian is Augustine of Hippo, who had very similar fears about marriage. It is good and natural in theory, but a risky venture that might imperil your salvation. One is better off avoiding it altogether.

As I have been reading various news reports, blogs, and editorials commenting upon the the new Anglican - Roman Catholic dialogue report on "Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ" I have been a little annoyed to hear critics repeat the same line again and again: that the "old ecumenism" is wishy washy. This is frequently contrasted with a proposed new ecumenism that would be committed to truth. What? Is the "old ecumenism" not committed to truth? The bulk of my annoyance stems from the fact that these critiques are not only rejecting the conclusions of the dialogues (a legitimate response), but also that they present the theologians and churches involved as insincere or unfaithful. Most of time these critiques stem from a general rejection of the ecumenical endeavour, not from any understanding of the content of the dialogues.

The 'ARCIC method', which is by now well tried and tested, is to go behind entrenched positions or statements of doctrines which have proved divisive and to see, as much as we can, what as Anglican and Roman Catholic Christians, we hold in common. Often ARCIC has used new language or perspectives, or revisited old language and perspectives, to bring out what we have in common and what we can say together. This is what we have done when faced with the questions over Mary which have proved divisive between our two communions. In the work of ARCIC as a whole the theme of communion has held much of our work together. In our work on Mary it was often the insights of the East (Mary as 'all-holy'; the 'dormition' of Mary) which helped us approach the problems that have divided the West. However, the truly fresh perspective we have brought to our work is that of Pauline theology: we have reflected on the place of Mary in our shared Christian faith in the light of the the Scriptural themes of grace and hope in Christ. (from ACNS 3983)

All ecumenical dialogues present their agreed statements to the churches for study, reflection, and hopefully reception. Reception is a complicated process. It is more than presenting it to the next Lambeth Conference or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is about the evaluation of the agreement in and through the life of the churches. It is not only about determining whether the statement is faithful to earlier statements but also about whether it is faithful to Scripture and the Tradition lived in the life of the churches today. Reception requires a sincere response, reflection, and evaluation on the part of the whole church.

For those who have not yet seen the ARCIC document, I have permission to post it online at « http://www.ecumenism.net/archive/arcic/mary_en.htm » on June 1st. It will also be available in French on the same day at « http://www.ecumenism.net/archive/arcic/mary_fr.