Excitement in Ireland this week?

Robert Blair Kaiser, well-known reporter of the Second Vatican Council for Time magazine and author of many books, says in an email that on Thursday he will “call on the Catholics … to start fighting for a new kind of independence – from Rome – as a home grown, enculturated Irish Church, still in communion with Rome, but living in its own Irish ‘sensus fidelium’ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

The occasion is the annual Humbert Summer School, a premier Irish national forum for public debate on contemporary issues. His talk is titled “Catholic Church Reform: No more thrones.”

Editor

Katharine E. Harmon, Ph.D., edits the blog, Pray Tell: Worship, Wit & Wisdom.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

26 responses to “Excitement in Ireland this week?”

  1. John Finn

    Don’t they already have the Church of Ireland?

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      They’re not in communion with Rome. Read the post, please.
      awr

      Reply
  2. Jeffrey Pinyan

    +JMJ+

    I am curious what his arguments are for why communion with Rome is important. Is he seeking to establish a sui iuris Church, or a “new Church”, for lack of a better expression?

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      I’m not sure any of your legal categories are helpful. I think he’s aiming to give one big heave for reforming the Roman Catholic Church, and then he’ll sit back and see what the response is and what he has stimulated in the group.
      awr

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        +JMJ+

        “he’s aiming to give one big heave for reforming the Roman Catholic Church”

        But it sounds like he doesn’t want to be considered “Roman” Catholic. Independence from — but communion with — Rome. Is he seeking that or is he seeking a overhaul of the Roman Catholic Church? Why not just say that?

      2. Samuel J. Howard

        RBK has apparently used such comparisons himself:

        In his 2004 book, “A Church in Search of Itself,” Kaiser first introduced the idea of an “autochthonous,” or homegrown American church “still in communion with Rome but on a model with the Maronites and Melkites, which have their own priesthood (some married),” as well as their own liturgy, language and polity, or form of governance. “Rome has never tried to rein them in,” he said. They are “every bit as Catholic,” he said.

  3. Ray Marshall

    What qualifications does he have that would entice the Irish to follow the recommendations of an 80 year old ?American? guy who won an award 48 years ago for reporting on Vatican II?

    He just seems to be one more ex-Vietnam War protester disenchanted with the Church for he usual issues: abortion, women priests, clerical celibacy, homosexuality, etc. He is enthralled with the possibility of the June 1911 rally planned for Detroit that intends to re-organize the Church.

    I’m sure the Irish must have plenty of dissidents of their own.

    Reply
  4. John Finn

    Fr. said: “…please read the post.”
    I did and I’ve also read RBK and my point is that RBK’s designs are found in the the Church of Ireland. In 2007 RBK said ” we do not have to wait for Vatican approval to go into autochthony.” I also wonder what RBK references when he discusses Vatican II because rhetorically he grounds his call for a new Church in Vat. II. Looking over one of his talks to Call to Action in 2007 we see the following:
    “At Vatican II, the Council Fathers wrote a charter for a new kind of people’s Church trying to turn the old pyramidal structure on its head” (Problem-Lumen Gentium maintains the hierarchical Church) “…: the Council’s decision to give the Mass back to the people, by taking it out of the language of the elite and put it in the vernacular” (but Vatican II maintains the Latin Mass). “Imagine our surprise when the Fathers voted for Mass in the vernacular by a count of roughly 2,000 to 200! Wow! (Problem is that did not happen-Vatican II’s SC maintains the Latin Mass-there was no vote for a vernacular Mass per se).
    RBK’s Vatican II is found somewhere outside the docs. the council actually produced.

    In his Call to Action talk, same topic as the Irish one, he calls for an autochthonous American Church. I guess Americans who want to stay in the Roman one would be regulated to “the back of the ecclesiastical bus”. As RBK sees no reason to seek Rome’s permission for his new autochthonous Church I remind him Ireland already has…

    Reply
  5. John Finn

    the Church of Ireland. I often wonder why self-styled Church reformers do not recognize that many of their ideas appear to be rooted in the Reformation.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      JF writes: “I often wonder why self-styled Church reformers do not recognize that many of their ideas appear to be rooted in the Reformation.”

      Point being? Do you assume that if it’s from the Reformation it’s bad? Or that there are no similarities between Vatican II reforms and Protestant reforms? But of course there are – more scripture, more vernacular, more lay participation, just to name a few similarities. (Many more things could be added to the list.)

      This is an ecumenical blog. We are respectful of other traditions and we do not assume that the Roman Catholic Church has the whole truth. Note also what our Comments Policy says about the ecumenical sensitivity we expect of all commenters.

      awr

      Reply
  6. John Finn

    Fr. Ruff,

    I guess it is more to the point that I would not accept the inverse of that statement – that “if it’s from the Reformation it’s (automatically) “positive”.
    In terms of truth I accept what the Church teaches. I do believe that the Catholic Church possesses & teaches the fullness of Christian truth and that other Christian bodies derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church (DI #16).

    I cannot imagine how repeating Vatican II’s teaching on truth and the Church would lack sensitivity within an ecumenical context. I do think that some of RBK’s writings could be read as lacking sensitivity. His descriptions of the Roman Catholic Church (in 2007) include the following:
    “corrupt, crumbling Church in America”
    “(Church is governed by) an absolute ruler ruling absolutely, elected in a secret ballot by 115 superannuated cardinals at a papal conclave”
    “the Church is more catholic, less Roman”
    “(In 2006) the American bishops met in solemn assembly and crafted statements that further demonstrated how deaf they are to the things that concern most Catholics”
    “our American Church isn’t American enough…. It is too Roman and not enough catholic…”
    “The chief villains in the Gospel story were the ancient equivalent of the Church’s cardinals today…”
    “…given Rome’s 200-year-old chokehold on America…”

    Seems less than sensitive.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Judgment call – but I think these are all trenchant judgments and that doesn’t necessarily make them insensitive.

      “Fullness of truth” – whether such a claim is in an official document or not, it seems pretty repugnant to the New Testament to me. And hard to support historically, considering what the Church has taught at times about slavery, inferiority of women, freedom of worship, and on and on.

      Where does this impulse come from to claim that “we’re better than other Christians”? I truly don’t believe it’s from the Spirit of Christ, and I don’t think any official document will convince me otherwise. As Rorey Cooney recently wrote in Pastoral Music, “being right is over-rated.” I would add that the most freeing words I know of as a Christian are “I was wrong.”

      awr

      Reply
  7. John Finn

    Father, you are extrapolating a hostility that is not present in my words nor in Church teaching docs..

    I guess if you apply RBK’s first statement to the mainline “Protestant” communities instead of the RC Church or his 2007 statement about the US Bishops to TEC’s House of Bishops we might be less patient with his trenchant judgments.

    Why are so many progressive Catholics insensitive of attacks on our own Roman tradition and of those Catholics who cherish these traditions? Any attempt to blame a lack of charity on the traditionalists presumed vitriol is belied by RBK’s writings and talks. We cannot say “I’m poorly behaved because they are”.

    “Where does this impulse come from to claim that “we’re better than other Christians”?

    Catholic orthodoxy is intoxicating, to be sure. A love of the sacraments, a concern for a valid Eucharist is quite important. Justice is a factor too considering the fact that some ecclesiastical communities have become too accommodating to the secular world-view even to the point of accepting homosexual activity and abortion. These two movements have cost us dearly in loss of life and a loss of religious freedom in our hospitals.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Validity in Eucharist is great, but a rather low goal. The whole point of Eucharist, I think, is self-emptying as Christ did, offeringing oneself in service to others, deepening ones solidarity with all Christians and all humanity in humility, and so forth. For me, the sharing in Christ’s offering the Eucharist calls into question all arrogance and triumphalism, personal or institutional. It almost inevitably leads us to look at Protestant eucharist in a new light, in terms much deeper than ‘validity.’ But I sense that we look at such things rather differently, so perhaps we must leave it at that.

      awr

      Reply
  8. Ceile De

    Well, there is one clarification for which I’d be grateful: as a Catholic priest, did you mean by “Validity in Eucharist is great, but a rather low goal” either:

    (a) validity of Eucharist is important but we should not be content to stop there once we have it – we should continue to push for more ecumenism; or

    (b) validity of Eucharist is a “nice to have” but not essential: ecumenism is more important than validity of the Eucharist.

    The sentence can be read either way (law and linguistics are my fields and the ambiguity hit me strongly) but there are huge implications depending on which you mean.

    Reply
    1. Jim McKay

      I read it as self-emptying in the Eucharist is a higher goal than validity. Ecumenism, as an imitation of Christ’s self-emptying, is truer to the Eucharist than concerns about validity.

      Compare it to LG 14’s remarks about being “in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”” Not exactly the same, but it gives a picture of the reductionism involved in taking validity as the standard for understanding the Eucharist.

      Of course, I am not Fr Anthony, and this may not address your question, so…

      Reply
    2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      I follow the doctrine and discipline of the Church. And I feel rather uncomfortable with your question because I’m not convinced that your understanding of sacramental validity didn’t stop about 50 years ago, without influence from the work of theologians on a renewed understanding of symbol and causality. Also, even as I do hold to Catholic teaching, it bothers me that Our Lord was so explicitly opposed to formalistic and legalistic requirements in religion, and he placed the emphasis almost exclusively on conversion of heart and faith in God. I wonder what he would say about the glib statements of (some) Catholics to other Christians about Eucharist that “your sacrament isn’t valid because you don’t meet the legal requirements of valid ordination and apostolic succession.” Especially when every reputable liturgical historian knows that “priest” was not used for any particular minister in the Church before the 3rd century – it took at least 200 years after Christ before Christians had a notion that one leader is a priest – and it’s also solidly documented that the chain of apostolic succession is not unbroken and doesn’t go back to the beginning, and the first generations of Christians didn’t have such an understanding. These are facts of historical research, and all the faith in the world can’t change them.
      awr

      Reply
  9. John Finn

    In a discussion of the influence of the Reformation on certain post Vat. 2 practices Fr said: “… we’ve got “more scripture, more vernacular, more lay participation” in the liturgy.”

    I know this is a widely held position but is it completely true?

    Considering the amount of Scripture read or sung at Mass in the EF we’ve got the introit, gradual (tract) & offertory chants all from Scripture, psalm 43/42 at the foot of the altar, the Gospel, the Epistle, Psalm 26 at the Lavabo, and the last Gospel.

    In the OF we’ve got the OT Reading, the R Psalm/Gradual, the Epistle, and the Gospel. The introit and offertory chants are rarely heard.

    I know that over the course of three years a wider selection of the Bible is read in the OF but the amount of Scripture heard/read in total at each individual celebration may not be all that different.

    The increasing use of the vernacular seems to reflect the Eastern Church practice more than the Reformers.

    Lay participation-most lay participation is interior and it seems more accurate to say “some” lay people take public roles at Mass because the overwhelming majority of Mass goers do not. Roles like EMHC;s always seem temporary and in some ways negative because when clergy (or instituted acolytes) are in plentiful supply we know they would not be needed. Congregations joining in the responses and chants also appears similar to the Eastern Church practice.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Baloney, JF, complete baloney. Go read the commentaries, go read the reports of those who drafted the Council documents. You’re making things up.
      awr

      Reply
      1. John Finn

        Making things up?

        Don’t think so-Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV in the first session of Vat. II encouraged the the Latins to allow the vernacular in the liturgy, following the example of the East, “where every language is, in effect, liturgical.” The Eastern Church’s participants in the council also campaigned for concelebration and communion under both species, something already normative in the Eastern Church.

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        No one denies Eastern influence – about which, note, I have written nothing. But all the Eastern influence in the world doesn’t lessen that great amount of overlap between many of the Catholic reforms at Vatican II and many of the Protestant reforms in the 16th century (and since). Theologians have even spoken of Martin Luther as a “silent father” at Vatican II.
        awr

  10. Mary Curtin

    I’m picking that this proposal does not create any excitement among most foreign nationals or foreign-born-and-raised Irish nationals now living in Ireland.

    In fact I can’t think of any worse idea than an Irish church without the influence of the rest of the world to remind you about such virtues as joy!

    Reply
  11. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    A couple of comments; I was amused when I visited Christ Cathedral a block from St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin less than a month ago, both of which are Church of Ireland (Anglican Communion). In a video presentation in the crypt, the history of the building included it’s Roman Catholic heritage, it’s Anglican heritage that reverted to Roman and then back to Anglican. The only difference noted was the Liturgy. So the Church of Ireland must believe itself to be in communion with the Universal Church which includes Rome and thus Kaiser would do well not to spin his wheels and other’s reinventing the wheel, just look at the Church of Ireland for a “truly” Irish Church, join it if one wants. Secondly, Vatican II certainly began a subsequent reform of the Mass that today allows the Church to have an Anglican Use Liturgy. This is certainly a post-Vatican II possibility that could be extended to other “separated” Christians in terms of the their Liturgy, such as Presbyterians and Methodists, if the Church ordained their clergy into valid orders. Validity seems to be key in this grand reform for clergy and liturgy and a variety of both!

    Reply
    1. Jim McKay

      Ecumenism is effective when Christ draws people together as one. That happens more when He is the focus rather than juridical issues. They are not irrelevant, but they can obscure the path.

      (One of Leo XIII’s arguments against Anglican Orders was that the Book of Common Prayer was so pervasively defective that no sacrament could be valid. Do you think an Anglican Use overturns that reasoning?)

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Jim,The Roman Catholic form of the Anglican usage does address Pope Leo’s concerns and has corrected anything lost in the reformation influences of the Anglican liturgy(s). Obviously too, clergy are ordained as Catholic priests/deacons after being received into the full communion of the Church and confirmed. But the point I was making is that the Catholic Church since Vatican II and because our own reformed liturgy is more ecumenical and open to the liturgical heritage of those communions influenced by the Protestant reformation. This has opened the door, with modifications, to the Anglican Use Liturgy. Theoretically other Protestant forms of liturgy such as that of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran communions and possibly others, with modifications to assure validity as Catholics and Orthodox understand validity, could come under the Roman Catholic liturgical umbrella. Also reviving the non-reformed Mass as a result of our own in-house ecumenism with traditionalist Catholics, has the added benefit of assisting us with the Orthodox Churches as the EF Mass is more in keeping with their style and spirituality of celebration–ecumenism at work! Who would have thought Vatican II would have brought such possibilities? I think it is downright exciting and a new era of ecumenical possibilities.

  12. Jim McKay

    Father, I agree with you heartily about the beneficial effects of ecumenism. Respect for traditions, both our own and those of other communities, is the heart of Ecumenism. Permitting multiple forms of liturgy within the Roman Rite is a welcome revival of the pre-tridentine practice, particularly given the disappearance of some long-established Western rites during the V2 reforms.

    Having actually looked into Leo XIII and the Anglican Use (instead of relying just on my far from perfect memory), I see that Leo was describing only the Ordinal when he wrote “if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient.” I have not seen that the Anglican Use even has an Ordinal, so my remark was not perfectly on target. Still, the Anglican Use reflects acceptance in part of Anglican tradition, suggesting that they have not been as deprived as Leo XIII thought.

    Appreciating our traditions is key to appreciating the Tradition of the Church, both as it is present among Catholics in union with Rome and as it is “present and active” outside the bounds of that community. ‘Validity’ will be judged within that context.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Editor

Tags:

,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading