A link in the apostolic chain

Today we thank the Lord for the ministry and martyrdom of S. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who was born (most likely) in 69 A.D., and died in 155 A.D. We ask this holy man to pray for us that we, like him, might be faithful in our witness to the Gospel of Jesus and the Faith once delivered to the saints, especially when such faithfulness entails sacrifice of one kind or another.

POLYCARP AND THE CHURCH AT SMYRNA

In his youth, Polycarp sat at the feet of the Apostle John from whom he learned the Faith. Furthermore, according to Irenaeus it was “by apostles in Asia” that he was appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, the second of the seven churches of Revelation (Revelation 2:8-11). It says in Revelation that the Lord knew their works and tribulation and poverty - although really they were rich! It goes on to predict a time of tribulation, as well as the reward of the crown of life for those who are faithful unto death.

The name Smyrna comes from the sweet smelling incense “myrrh.” The Church at Smyrna was indeed a sweet smelling sacrifice, offered completely to God, its members mercilessly fed to wild beasts or burned alive. The city came under Byzantine rule in the fourth century. This lasted until Seljuk Turks conquered it in the 11th century. Then in 1415, Smyrna became part of the Ottoman Empire. It is now the modern Turkish city of Izmir.

We know that Polycarp was regarded as a gentle, godly pastor, and a key mainstream leader within the Church of his day. Near the end of his life he travelled to Rome as spokesman of the Churches in Asia in order to discuss the proper date of Easter with Pope Anicetus. They parted friends, neither having persuaded the other, and the Pope - as a mark of deep respect - 'conceded' Polycarp the celebration of the Eucharist in Rome (Eusebius v.23-5).

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH

Polycarp vigorously defended the truly incarnational Catholic Faith against the fashionable gnostic sect of Valentinians - whose version of Christianity reminds us of many ideas we come across today! (As S. Irenaeus wrote of this sect, 'They create their own Scriptures, boasting that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have gone to such a degree of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing the Gospel of Truth though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles so that they have really no gospel which is not full of blasphemy.' - Against Heresies 3.9)

And, as if the Valentinians were not enough, Polycarp also had to defend the Faith against Marcion who denied that the God of the Old Testament was also the God of the New Testament. (In fact, many modern day Christians tend to be Marcionites in their approach to the Old Testament, a point driven home by Fr Aidan Nichols in his book on the Old Testament, 'Lovely Like Jerusalem.')

MARTYRDOM

S. Polycarp was a friend of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. When Ignatius was being taken under guard to Rome for his execution, he met Polycarp at Smyrna. Later, from Troas, Ignatius wrote Polycarp a letter which has survived. You can read it HERE. We also have the letter written by Polycarp to the Church at Philippi in Macedonia. It is HERE.

Polycarp was martyred, with twelve others, when he was 86 years old, during a time of persecution.

On Holy Saturday in 155 AD, he was carried before the proconsul and threatened with death in the fire if he would not renounce the Christian faith. The proconsul liked the old man and urged him, saying, 'swear, and I will release you, - Curse Christ.' Polycarp answered, 'eighty and six years have I served him, and he never once wronged me; how then shall I blaspheme my King, who has saved me?'

'When the pyre was ready, Polycarp removed his outer clothes and loosened his girdle. He even tried to take off his shoes, a thing which he never did before because the faithful used constantly to vie with one another to see who could touch his flesh first. Such was the honour in which he was held, even before his martyrdom, for the saintliness of his life. Immediately the irons with which the pyre was equipped were fastened round him, but when they tried to nail him as well, he said, “Let me be. He who gives me strength to endure the fire will also grant me to stay on the pyre unflinching even without your making sure of it with nails.’ So they did not nail him, but only tied him up.

'And so he was bound, putting his arms behind his back like a noble ram taken from a large flock for a sacrifice, a burnt offering acceptable to and made ready for God. Then he gazed up to heaven and said: “O Lord God Almighty, Father of your beloved and blessed child Jesus Christ, through whom we have received knowledge of you, God of the angels and the powers and of all creation, God of the whole race of the righteous who live in your sight; I bless you, for you have thought me worthy of this day and hour to share the cup of your Christ, as one of your martyrs, to rise again to eternal life in body and soul in the immortality of the Holy Spirit. May I be taken up today into your presence among your martyrs, as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, in the manner you have prepared and have revealed, and have now brought to fulfilment, for you are the God of truth, and in you is no deceit. And so also I praise you for all things; I bless you and glorify you through our eternal high priest in heaven, your beloved child, Jesus Christ, through whom be glory to you and to him and to the Holy Spirit, now and for the ages to come. Amen.'

(From The Letter of the Church at Smyrna on the Martyrdom of St Polycarp - translation from The Divine Office)

POLYCARP AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

Apart from the glories of his ministry and martyrdom, S. Polycarp is important as a link between the original Apostles and the Age of the Fathers. It is significant that his short Letter to the Philippians has 112 quotes and allusions to Scripture. Of these, only a dozen are from the Old Testament; the rest are from what would come to be called the New Testament. These are the New Testament books he quotes:

Matthew’s Gospel, Mark’s Gospel, Luke’s Gospel, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, 3 John.

Those who study the formation of the New Testament canon see this is an important indication that although considerable debate took place in the life of the Church on the fixing of the outer limits of the canon - a process that really took until 397 A.D. - the Apostolic writings were already in practice 'canonical' during the ministry of one who learned the Faith from the Apostles. (By the way, it is significant that Irenaeus - who had been a student of Polycarp - quotes from 21 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and seems to allude to three others.)

POLYCARP AND THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC FAITH

St Polycarp is also important as a link with those who affirm specifically 'Catholic' beliefs about the ministry and the sacraments.

We just mentioned S. Irenaeus who became Bishop of Lyons around 178 A.D. He was born around 130, only a century after the death of Jesus. When he was young there were still people around who had known the Apostles, heard them preach and studied with them, and who spoke and taught about them. Irenaeus writes:

'Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.' (Against Heresies, III.3.4)

Irenaeus learned many things from Polycarp. He writes:

'I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ (1 John 1:1) Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.

'These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And continually, through God’s grace, I recall them faithfully. And I am able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing [i.e. heresy], he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times have you spared me that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words.' (Eusebius 5.20.5-7)

IRENAEUS, POLYCARP AND THE APOSTLE JOHN

The Apostle John, who outlived the rest of the Twelve, taught Polycarp, who - in turn - passed his teaching on. According to his testimony, Irenaeus received this same teaching from Polycarp, and also passed it on - an example of 'capital T tradition' being guarded by the Apostolic Succession, for there it is . . . John, Polycarp, and Irenaeus . . . the early Church’s bishops in succession.

What did Irenaeus get from Polycarp? What did he pass on? One of his key teachings was to do with the Eucharist. His clear statement on this subject was necessitated by the Gnostic heresies, all of which were dualistic, seeing spirit as good, and matter as evil, or at least incapable of goodness. Many of them denied that Jesus had a real body, and therefore denied that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. How could God's presence be in any way associated with physical things like bread and wine? So . . . here is a passage from Irenaeus’ teaching on the Eucharist, which he heard from Polycarp, who learned it from John, who received it from Jesus:

'1. When Christ visited us in His grace, He did not come to what did not belong to Him: also, by shedding His true blood for us, and exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist, He conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation . . .

'2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed does not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

'3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones, that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. 

(Against Heresies, Book V Ch II)

Why am I giving you such a chunk of S. Irenaeus on this feast of S. Polycarp? I’ll tell you why. In my teenage years I made friends with people from across the spectrum of Christian traditions . . . good friends, sincere friends, some of whom did (and still do) shame me with the reality of their walk with God. Furthermore, I believe that many of those traditions have preserved aspects of the Gospel and even the Catholic Faith that have at times been overlooked by the Catholic Church. And it is obvious that the Holy Spirit still uses these traditions in different ways to bring people to know Jesus.

But at a time when I wanted to know the truth about the sacraments, I had to come to terms with the fact that to deny Catholic teaching meant accepting the Church up to 397 A.D. as being able reliably to tell me what constituted the Word of God (the canon of Scripture), and then using relatively novel (400 years old) interpretations of that Scripture to prove that the same Church was in error on just about everything else she demonstrably believed back then! For me it was clear: I could not logically accept the New Testament as the Word of God without also accepting the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial dimenson of the Eucharist, and the Apostolic Succession etc etc.

ANGLICANS AND THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 

It also became clear to me that the Anglican Tradition in its truest instinct is Catholic, for Canon 6 of the same 1571 Convocation that authorised the final form of the Thirty-nine Articles states:

'Preachers shall . . . see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine . . . '

In other words, whatever else may be said about Anglican ambiguities and comprehensiveness, and the language of our formularies (and lots of things ARE said!), the intention of that Canon is quite clear: the clergy are to teach the mainstream things about the Christian Faith - including the Eucharist - that we find passed on by S. Polycarp and others in that vital succession of the Church of the Apostles and early Fathers. In our own time real 'Anglo-Catholics' can be guaranteed a fair amount of reproach for our determination still to witness to these foundational truths!  

Another small digression . . . I must give you two more quotes from the same period. Writing between 80 A.D. and 110 A.D., S. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (and, as we have seen, a friend of S. Polycarp) calls the Blessed Sacrament:

“the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.'

(To the Smyrnaeans VII.1)

St Justin Martyr says the same kind of thing a little later on - around 150 AD (i.e. still before St Polycarp, who learned the Faith from the Apostle John, had died):

'We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Saviour became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the Flesh and Blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of His own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.' (Apology I.66)

Summing up, then . . . Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was taught by John the Apostle - John who leaned against the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper, who stood by the cross with Mary, bore witness to the Resurrection, taught about Jesus being the Bread of Life (John 6), and celebrated many Masses in which he was convinced that the bread and wine really becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus, from which we receive his life for our own flesh, and which then leads to the resurrection of our bodies.

God of all creation,

it was your gracious will

that the holy bishop Polycarp

be numbered among the companyof the martyrs;

grant through his intercession

that we may share with him

the cup of Christ’s sufferings,

and so rise again to everlasting life.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

who lives and reigns with you

in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

God for ever and ever.

Amen.

"Fathers in God" - edited by Colin Podmore

Back in 2004, the book CONSECRATED WOMEN, an initiative of Forward in Faith, was published by Canterbury Press. It contained a theological response to the direction of the Church of England’s General Synod with regard to women bishops, and a useful appendix of several resource papers cogently arguing the case against the ordination of women in general. At the time CONSECRATED WOMEN was published, it already seemed certain that on the substantive issue, mainstream Catholics had lost in the General Synod. That's why the burden of the book was to argue the case for a jurisdictional structure within the Church of England for those who conscienciously held the innovation to be against the mind of the Church Catholic, of which the Church of England has always claimed to be part. The rest of CONSECRATED WOMEN was taken up with suggested detailed changes to Canon Law that would enable such a jurisdiction to become a reality.

Subsequently, a strictly jurisdictional solution was rejected by the Synod. Then followed Pope Benedict’s creation of the Ordinariate for clergy and “groups” who left the Church of England. In 2012, the legislation for women bishops came into being, supported by the five “declarations” which include a kind of provision for parishes and clergy who would otherwise feel that they had been “unchurched.” Subsequently, Forward in Faith, the Bishops of the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda, and - admittedly - some of the bishops on the other side of the debate, have worked hard to ensure a continued ecclesial life for Catholic Christians within the Church of England.

It would have been a great pity if the theological parts of CONSECRATED WOMEN had slipped into history, out of sight and out of mind, as they carefully relate the various arguments together in a way that is both positive and widely accessible. That is why the Church should be thankful to Dr Colin Podmore, Director of Forward in Faith, for editing FATHERS IN GOD, an excellent volume that incorporates those theological parts of CONSECRATED WOMEN (which had been edited by Bishop Jonathan Baker) as well as new articles and addresses by Emma Forward, Cardinal Kasper, Bishop Geoffrey Rowell, Dr Podmore and Bishop Martin Warner, with a foreword by the Bishop of Coventry.

There is a new generation in what are sometimes now called the “declaration” parishes. These people were not around for the theological debates of 20 to 30 years ago, and some want to know the reasons why their parish doesn’t have a woman bishop or priest. FATHERS IN GOD needs to be made widely available.

FATHERS IN GOD? is available from Forward in Faith. Go HERE for details.

The Kindle edition is available HERE.

Order your ORDO for 2016! (The one Fr Hunwicke compiles for Anglican Catholics)

A number of us had feared that when Father John Hunwicke joined the Ordinariate, he would no longer produce his Ordo for members of the Church of England. In fact, he has continued to do so, and the 2016 edition is now available. I have used this version of the Ordo for many years, and it is - in my opinion - without doubt the very best one for Anglican Catholics. (Apart from the calendar, readings, and guidance as to how best we should worship with the whole Church, Father Hunwicke’s sparkling wit always undergirds his advice on resolving particular liturgical problems!)

The ORDO is available for £11.50 from the online shop of THE ADDITIONAL CURATES’ SOCIETY.

Forward in Faith North America responds to the English women bishop's vote

In the light of recent events within the Church of England, and reports regarding Forward in Faith (U.K.), the officers of Forward in Faith North America (FiFNA) hereby issues the following statement.

First, it is with deep sorrow that FiFNA acknowledges the vote by the General Synod of the Church of England to proceed with the “consecration” of women to the episcopate. This action heightens the level of difficulty for Anglicans during this period of reception, by placing more barriers before those who are seeking to live under and promote the historic priesthood and episcopate. Sadly, the autonomy of the local church, albeit provinces, has usurped the authority and unity of Ecumenical consensus and the Church catholic, exposing yet again the ecclesial deficit of our Communion that can only be addressed through the historic tools of Conciliar discernment.

For our brothers and sisters in the Church of England who maintain the worldwide majority position of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church regarding Holy Orders, we pledge our prayerful support, love, and respect. You have consistently upheld biblical and theological principles in an age of secularism. However, we are encouraged that this most unfortunate decision, has been accompanied by provisions enabling Catholic Anglicans to remain in the Church of England with integrity, and the Church of England’s stated commitment to enable them to flourish within its life and structures. Sadly, since the beginning of the ordination of women as priests in the Episcopal Church, and their subsequent consecration to the episcopate, those assurances were offered, only to be later withdrawn to faithful Catholic Anglicans (in the Episcopal Church). The many divisions, coupled with massive litigation, have produced an environment which we pray will not become your reality.

We also assure you of our prayerful support as you seek to develop “The Society” under the patronage of St. Wilfrid and St. Hilda, as the ecclesial structure for bishops, clergy, religious and parishes to live in full communion with each other within the Church of England, as you recommit yourselves to Mission. Although this became impossible in the Episcopal Church, we pray that wisdom will prevail for you in the days ahead. We also wish to thank all those who have worked tirelessly in simply restating what the Church has always believed, and in particular what became obvious to many people in Forward in Faith – the necessity of working with faithful Anglicans of various traditions that may in some ways differ from our own, for the sake of unity in Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

We also reaffirm the position which FiFNA published previously concerning human sexuality, the importance of which, in many current challenges in Church life, cannot be overstated: “Under the authority of holy scripture and the tradition of the church, we affirm that sexual activity can only properly take place within the context of holy matrimony between a man and a woman. We affirm that any other type of sexual relationship is sinful regardless of context or degree of fidelity, and that the church cannot bless any type of sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony between a man and a woman. We affirm Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as the standard for Christian sexual behavior.”

The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, President

The Rt. Rev. William H. Ilgenfritz, Vice President

The Rev. Lawrence Bausch, Vice President

Dr. Michael W. Howell, Executive Director

From the web site of Forward in Faith North America

The Day After . . . Two important statements

Final Approval of the Women Bishops Legislation

Many in the Church of England are celebrating today, following final approval of the legislation to permit women to be ordained as bishops.

While recognizing this, we deeply regret the further obstacle that this decision places in the path to the full, visible unity of the whole Church.

We do, however, welcome the provision that has been made in the House of Bishops’ Declaration. It recognizes that our theological convictions about ministry and ordination remain within the spectrum of Anglican teaching and tradition. It assures us that bishops will continue to be consecrated within the Church of England who can provide episcopal ministry that accords with those theological convictions. It makes provision for parishes to gain access to that episcopal ministry by passing resolutions.

This gives us confidence in our future as catholics who are called to live out our Christian vocation in the Church of England. For this we give thanks to God.

On behalf of the Council of Bishops

+ TONY PONTEFRACT 

Rt Revd Tony Robinson 

Bishop of Pontefract 

Chairman

Statement: Women Bishops - Church of England

14/07/2014 4:50 pm

The Catholic Church remains fully committed to its dialogue with the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. For the Catholic Church, the goal of ecumenical dialogue continues to be full visible ecclesial communion.

Such full ecclesial communion embraces full communion in the episcopal office. The decision of the Church of England to admit women to the episcopate therefore sadly places a further obstacle on the path to this unity between us. Nevertheless we are committed to continuing our ecumenical dialogue, seeking deeper mutual understanding and practical cooperation wherever possible.

We note and appreciate the arrangement of pastoral provision, incorporated into the House of Bishops’ Declaration and the amending Canon passed by the General Synod, for those members of the Church of England who continue to hold to the historic understanding of the episcopate shared by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

At this difficult moment we affirm again the significant ecumenical progress which has been made in the decades since the Second Vatican Council and the development of firm and lasting friendships between our communities. We rejoice in these bonds of affection and will do all we can to strengthen them and seek together to witness to the Gospel in our society.

ARCHBISHOP BERNARD LONGLEY

Chairman of the Department for Dialogue and Unity 

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

"Legality" and "sacramental validity" - not the same thing

Many of us now find ourselves in a situation where the state uses the word “marriage” quite differently to its meaning in the Christian tradition. My personal view is that simply to substitute “matrimony” for “marriage” in Christian circles, as many are suggesting, fudges the issue, for it is the reality described as “marriage” in the Scriptures that the innovators think can be enlarged to include same sex couples. We simply have to accept the fact that the word “marriage” has been legally hijacked, and get used to teaching - as we are still allowed to do (apparently) - the Christian understanding of it, based on what we believe to be God’s revelation.

In any case, this will be good practice for members of the Church of England who, it seems, will have to get used to some people being “legally” bishops, who in good conscience many cannot regard as being "real" bishops in the sense that others are - again, based on a view of God’s revelation held in common with the ancient Churches of East and West with whom we have always claimed to share the apostolic ministry. 

Back in December, Dr Mark Thompson, Principal of Moore Theological College in Sydney, explored these issues in an Australian context, from a conservative evangelical angle. I share his article with you, simply because we will have to get used to the idea - in all charity towards those with whom we disagree, as Dr Thompson himself urges - that “validity” and “legality” are not necessarily the same thing. The article comes from Dr Thompson’s website HERE.

LEGALITY AND VALIDITY

Does something become legitimate by virtue of legislative enactment? Does the decision of a parliamentary majority or of a court of law suffice to settle the question of whether a course of action is appropriate, or legitimate or valid? Can Christians recognise the legal or constitutional reality of a situation without for a moment consenting to its reality in a deeper sense — something that legitimately exists in a world constituted by God’s word?

Two recent developments in Australia raise this question in stark terms for us. The first is the conduct of same sex ‘marriage’ services in the Australian Capital Territory last weekend. These services went ahead despite a resolution of the High Court of Australia to reserve its decision on a challenge to the Territory’s legislation until 12 December. How are we to view such marriages? Would we view them any differently if the High Court had already delivered its decision and it was in favour of the ACT’s legislation?

Words from the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer (1662) come to mind:

For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.

The more recent Common Prayer: Resources for gospel-shaped gatherings (2012), produced in the Diocese of Sydney, follows the wording of An Australian Prayer Book (1978) in both forms of the marriage service provided:

For be assured that those who marry otherwise than God’s word allows are not joined together by God, neither is their marriage lawful in his sight.

Most obviously the intent of these words was never to deny the authority of parliaments and the judicial system. After all, Cranmer, the original author of the words (the 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books are identical in wording to the BCP, with allowance for variations in spelling) was an Erastian who believed very strongly in the authority of the State in religious matters as well as secular matters. Yet not entirely. The king was ‘singular protector, supreme lord and even, so far as the law of Christ allows, supreme head of the English Church and clergy’ and it is a simple matter of record that the king did not annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon on his own authority. Cranmer, acting on decisions of a number of convocations of clergy, was the one who declared the marriage invalid on 23 May 1533. The law of the land (in Cranmer’s time virtually equivalent to the will of the king) was one thing, but there was a higher authority to whom appeals such as this needed to be made. At the very least the appearance of deference to that authority needed to be preserved.

In the end, it does not matter what authority is used to declare a marriage valid — one of Henry VIII’s own arguments was that even the Pope (by the special dispensation allowing Henry to marry Catherine in 1509) could not overturn the teaching of Scripture on the matter — marriage gains its definition and dignity, not from the State or the consensus of the people, but from the word of God.  Given the clear teaching of Scripture that homosexual activity (not temptation or orientation but activity) is contrary to the will of God and itself a peculiar expression of that depravity into which the race has fallen by its ‘exchange of the truth for a lie’, the expression ‘same-sex marriages’ is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

So the ACT government, or the Federal Government may well redefine marriage in a way that includes the union of same-sex couples, and the High Court of Australia might well declare such legislation constitutionally valid, but it will make no difference to the real status of these unions before the only jurisdiction that ultimately counts. Those who marry otherwise than God’s word allows are not joined together by God, neither is their marriage lawful in his sight.

The second development is the consecration of women as bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia. Following the failure of successive attempts to get legislation permitting the consecration of women bishops through the General Synod, an appeal to the highly-politicised Appellate Tribunal resulted in an opinion from that body in 2007 that no such legislation was necessary but that the implication of women in the episcopate was carried within the legislation which enabled women presbyters (aka priests). Since then four women have been consecrated: Kay Goldsworthy in Perth (2008), Barbara Darling in Melbourne (2008), Genieve Blackwell in Canberra-Goulburn (2012) and Alison Taylor in Brisbane (April 2013). Last month, Sarah Macneil of Canberra-Goulburn was elected to be Bishop of Grafton, so she will be the first female diocesan bishop in Australia.

There can be no suggestion that anything other than proper legal process was followed in the election or appointment of each of these women. Properly constituted groups or persons proposed and considered their names and the decisions made are beyond dispute. According to the legal processes of the Anglican Church of Australia each of these women are bishops.

However, many of us cannot recognise them as bishops in a more important sense. Given the teaching of the New Testament on the headship of men in marriage and in a Christian congregation, — headship, it should be noted, that must always be characterised by self-sacrificial service patterned upon the headship of Christ and the recognition of that headship by the church —and given the explicit instructions about men, women and teaching in the Pastoral Epistles, the ordination of women as presbyters or the consecration of women as bishops is a matter of deep concern. In order to avoid a prima facie reading of these biblical texts all sorts of hermeneutical manoeuvres must be attempted and hypothetical reconstructions proposed that would relativise what is being taught or at least restrict its application to a set of specific conditions that no longer apply today. These manoeuvres and these proposals are very often made in good conscience. But to many of us it seems that whatever the intentions of those involved, the net effect is to overturn or to evade the teaching of Scripture and so is another instance of human disobedience.

A similar argument applies to that used in the previous example. It doesn’t in the end matter how legally proper the process that ended up in these elections or nominations, it doesn’t matter what endorsement is supplied, whether from a diocesan synod, the General Synod, the Appellate Tribunal or even the Lambeth Conference. If this is indeed contrary to the teaching of Scripture then it is impossible to recognise these women or any others as validly consecrated or legitimately bishops.

These are enormous challenges but how to conduct ourselves with grace and courtesy in the face of such very significant differences on these issues is every bit as challenging. I suspect the way ahead, though, can hardly be to pretend those differences do not exist. The stakes are so high — who we were created to be as human beings, the nature of the image of God, God’s gift of marriage, the headship of Christ and the church, the health of the Christian congregation and, indeed of society as a whole — that these issues cannot be relegated to ‘matters of secondary importance’. If they are indeed addressed in the Scriptures then in each case it is a matter of Christian faith and of genuine discipleship with all that this implies. If God has spoken, then the appropriate Christian response is gratitude, faith and joyful obedience.

Those supporting the consecration of these women and many of those who support the solemnising of same-sex unions do so conscientiously believing themselves to be doing the will of God. In the case of women bishops, much use is made of the language of a divine call, their call to be a bishop from God through the agency of the church. We are bound to ask whether the use of such language is itself useful or appropriate given the Bible’s teaching on the call of God and the nature of Christian ministry. Nevertheless, those with whom we disagree on these matters are real people, people created by God and loved by him, men and women for whom Christ died. Many of them are our brothers and sisters with whom we can expect to share eternity. How we treat them, while holding on to truth and not giving the slightest ground to error, is itself part of the challenge of our times. God is love and he is also light. We must be faithful and courageous and at the same time people of grace.

Cardinal Kasper's plea to the Church of England: Say "No" to women bishops!

In the context of the unity and healing many Anglicans and Roman Catholics believe the Holy Spirit had been nurturing in the Church throughout the twentieth century, in fulfilment of the prayer of Jesus, the June 2006 address of Cardinal Walter Kasper to the bishops of the Church of England has huge significance.

Then head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, Kasper, whose desire for full ecclesial reunion between Rome and Canterbury is well known, had been invited by Archbishop Rowan Williams to address the annual meeting of all serving Church of England bishops at Market Bosworth, Leicestershire. Senior women clergy and those “involved in the ministry of women” were also present. Kasper was clear, forthright and passionate. 

If ever there has been a word of godly warning to the Church of England in recent times, this is it!

Even at this eleventh hour, are there General Synod members out there who may even believe in the possibility of women bishops, but who also accept godly restraint in this matter because of our self identity as but a tiny part of the Church Catholic?

Cardinal Kasper’s address (below) is on the websites of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Vatican.   

Mission of Bishops in the Mystery of the Church: 

reflections on the question of ordaining women 

to episcopal office in the Church of England

Cardinal Walter Kasper 

An address given to the Church of England Bishops’ Meeting, 5 June 2006

I wish to thank the Archbishop of Canterbury for the invitation to speak to you as the Church of England House of Bishops on a question that concerns you and therefore also concerns the Catholic Church and me personally as President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. I have already had occasion to say to Archbishop Rowan Williams: Our friends’ problems are our problems too.  In this spirit of ecumenical solidarity I would like to offer you some reflections on the question of the ordination of women to episcopal office.  Naturally these reflections are made from a Catholic perspective; I am of course convinced that the decision that you are facing involves us together with you, insofar as it will be of fundamental significance for relations between us in the future.

I

Today is not the first time we have discussed the subject of women’s ordination. Therefore I would like to begin with a brief overview of our previous discussions. The introduction of the ordination of women to the priesthood by some provinces of the Anglican Communion, including the Church of England, was preceded by a lively correspondence between Rome and Canterbury. Pope Paul VI addressed a letter on this issue to Archbishop Donald Coggan on 30 November 1975 and again on 23 March 1976, and this was followed by a letter from Pope John Paul II to Archbishop Robert Runcie on 20 December 1984. My predecessor in office, Cardinal Jan Willebrands, responded to Archbishop Runcie’s reply on 18 December 1985.

On the question of the ordination of women to episcopal office, Pope John Paul II wrote a very earnest letter to Archbishop Robert Runcie of 8 December 1988. The Pope spoke openly of ‘new obstacles in the way of reconciliation between Catholics and Anglicans’ and of the danger of ‘block[ing] the path to the mutual recognition of ministries.’ He made reference to the ecumenical and ecclesiological dimensions of the question. In the joint declarations with Archbishop Robert Runcie on 2 October 1989 and with Archbishop George Carey on 5 December 1996 he addressed this question once more.

I should also mention the declarations by ARCIC, and the detailed response to the Rochester Report Women Bishops in the Church of England? by the Department of Dialogue and Unity of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales on 3 October 2005.

The official argumentation of the Catholic Church on the ordination of women is found in the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘On the Admission of Women to the Priesthood’, Inter insigniores (1977), and in the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II, ‘On reserving priestly ordination to men alone’, Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994).  There the Pontiff stated that the Catholic Church was convinced that it had no authority for such ordinations. It therefore considers such ordinations invalid (CJC can 1024).

This position has often been misconstrued as misogyny and denial of the equal dignity of women. But in the Apostolic Letter ‘On the Dignity and Vocation of Women’ Mulieris dignitatem (1988) and in his ‘Letter to Women’ (29 June 1995) Pope John Paul II made it clear that the position of the Catholic Church in no way arose from a denial of the equal dignity of men and women or a lack of esteem for women, but is based solely on fidelity to apostolic testimony as it has been handed down in the Church throughout the centuries. The Catholic Church distinguishes between the equal value and equal dignity of men and women on the one hand and on the other hand the differentiation of the two sexes, which have a complementary relationship with one another.  Similar statements are found in the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘On the collaboration of men and women in the church and in the world’ (2004).  Pope Benedict XVI reiterated and made concrete this view in his address to the clergy of Rome on 2 March 2006.

I know that this question involves many complex hermeneutical, anthropological and theological problems that I cannot enter into in this context.  The position of the Catholic Church can only be understood and evaluated if one recognizes that the argumentation has a biblical basis, but that the Church does not read the Bible as an isolated historical document.  Rather it understands the Bible in the light of the whole 2000-year tradition of all the ancient churches, the Catholic Church as well as the ancient Eastern and Orthodox churches.

Doubtless, historically conditioned views at times had some influence on this tradition.  There are some arguments belonging to the past that we do not reiterate today.  We should of course be aware that our contemporary views are also historically contingent in many respects, and that presumably only future centuries will be able to measure just how greatly we have been conditioned by our times;  they will presumably chuckle over many things which we take for granted today, just as we do over many ideas of the ancient or medieval world.

On the other hand, it can be academically demonstrated that the rejection of the ordination of women within the tradition was not predicated on contemporary concepts alone but in essence on theological arguments.  Therefore it should not be assumed that the Catholic Church will one day revise its current position.  The Catholic Church is convinced that she has no right to do so.

II

Following this brief review of the discussion regarding the ordination of women to priesthood I would like to turn now to the current question of the ordination of women to the episcopal office.  At first glance it seems to be a virtually unavoidable consequence of the first step, the ordination of women to the priesthood.  The sacrament of ordination is one single sacrament, and access to one step in principle also opens the way to the next step.  The reverse conclusion then must be that if women cannot be admitted to the priesthood, then they obviously cannot be admitted to episcopal office either.

Nevertheless, in the ecumenical context the ordination of women to episcopal office confronts us with a new situation relative to the ordination to the priesthood, and represents a considerable further escalation of the problem.  Why?  The answer to this question derives from the nature of the episcopal office, which according to the early church as well as to the current understanding of the Catholic Church, is an office of unity.  As such it is particularly relevant to ecumenical concerns and aims.

I can here only touch on the foundations of this thesis.  My starting point is that unity and unanimity are fundamental words in the New Testament: ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all’ (Eph, 4,5).  According to the testimony of the Acts of the Apostles, unanimity was one of the signs of the first church (1,14;  2,46;  4,24 et al).  The significance of unity in the Church and under the apostles emerges from the way the Church dealt with the conflict regarding the continued validity of Jewish law, which touched on the foundations of Christianity.  After extensive discussions the controversy was settled at that time with a handshake as a sign of communion (koinonia) (Acts, 15;  Gal, 2).  So koinonia / communio is a foundational term which gained fundamental significance for the early church, and which in the eyes of many once more occupies a pre-eminent place in defining the essence of the Church today.  The Church is shared participation in the life of God, therefore koinonia with God and with one another (1 Jn, 1,3).

So from the beginning the episcopal office was ‘koinonially’ or collegially embedded in the communion of all bishops;  it was never perceived as an office to be understood or practised individually.  In his history of the Church Eusebius describes in detail the endeavours to maintain peace, unity, love and communion during the violent conflicts of the second century regarding the correct fasting practices and the dating of Easter (Hist. eccl., v,23f;  cf.  vii,5).

The collegial nature of the episcopal office achieves its most impressive expression in the consecration of bishops.  As early as the Council of Nicea (325) it was stipulated that, if possible, a bishop should be consecrated by all the bishops of a province, or at least by a minimum of three bishops with the consent of the others (Can. 4).  A synod at Antiochia (341) demanded the presence of at least the majority of the bishops of the province.  The ‘Apostolic Constitutions’ are even more demanding in their judgements.  Anyone who has been consecrated by only one bishop should be deposed (Can. 27).  In the early church collegial induction into the episcopal office corresponded to the collegial exercise of the office through the exchange of letters, reciprocal visits and above all the joint consultation and formulation of resolutions at the synods or councils.

We are indebted above all to the martyr bishop Cyprian of Carthage for a thorough theology of the episcopal office.  His sentence ‘episcopatus unus et indivisus’ is well known.  This sentence stands in the context of an urgent admonition by Cyprian to his fellow bishops:

Quam unitatem tenere firmiter et vindicare debemus maxime episcopi, qui in ecclesia praesidimus, ut episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus.  [And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the church, that we may also prove the episcopate one and undivided.]

This urgent exhortation is followed by a precise interpretation of the statement ‘episcopatus unus et indivisus’.  ‘Episcopatus unus est cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur’ [The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.] (De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, 1,5).

Such statements and admonitions recur again and again in Cyprian’s letters (Ep., 55,21;  59,14 et al.).  Most familiar is the statement that the Church is the people united with the bishop and the flock devoted to its shepherd.  ‘The bishop is in the church and the church is in the bishop, and if anyone is not with the bishop he is not with the church.’ But Cyprian goes even one step further: he not only emphasises the unity of the people of God with its own individual bishop, but also adds that no one should imagine that he can be in communion with just a few, for ‘the Catholic Church is not split or divided’ but ‘united and held together by the glue of the mutual cohesion of the bishops’ (Ep., 66,8).

Cyprian’s concept has become the norm.  The first Vatican Council took up Cyprian’s formula of ‘episcopatus unus et indivisus’ and gave it a prominent position (DS, 3951);  this was later reiterated by the Second Vatican Council (LG, 18), which added depth to the theology of the episcopal office in the early church tradition with the concept of episcopal collegiality (particularly LG, 22f).  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.

The episcopal office is thus an office of unity in a two-fold sense.  Bishops are the sign and the instrument of unity within the individual local church, just as they are between both the contemporary local churches and those of all times within the universal Church.

It is one of the heartening experiences of ecumenical dialogue that we have been able to establish that this understanding of the Church as koinonia, and with it the ‘koinonial’ understanding of the episcopal office, is not just a particular Catholic tradition, but an understanding we share with the Anglican Communion.  It can be found in the ARCIC conversations from the very beginning.  It can also be found in the Paper of the House of Bishops Bishops in Communion: Collegiality in the Service of the Koinonia of the Church (2000), and it has entered into and become fundamental in the Windsor Report (2004).  We can thus recognise with gratitude that we share a broad common theological and ecclesiological basis on this issue.

Should we not therefore also be in a position to say together: the decision for the ordination of women to the episcopal office can only be made with an overwhelming consensus, and must not in any way involve a conflict between the majority and the minority.  It would be desirable that this decision would be made with the consensus of the ancient churches of the East and West.  If on the contrary the consecration of a bishop becomes the cause of a schism or blocks the way to full unity, then what occurs is something intrinsically contradictory.  It should then not take place, or should be postponed until a broader consensus can be reached.

III

In formulating this last conclusion I have already moved from a presentation of the theological foundations toward the practical questions and conclusions that I would like to address in the following discussion.  I do so with inner hesitation and at the same time with pain and sadness.  But I believe I can best serve the cause of ecumenism with open and honest statements.

If I see it correctly, the principles I have set out lead to two practical consequences, one for the sphere of the Anglican Communion and the Church of England itself, and one for the inter-ecclesial, ecumenical sphere, and in concrete terms, for the future relationship of the Church of England to the Catholic Church.

If what I have said about the unity of the episcopate and the shared collegial participation in the one episcopate is true, then the mutual recognition of bishops, and in particular the recognition of the validity and legality of their ordination, is constitutive for the unity of the Church.  At issue here is not a purely canonical or disciplinary question which could be solved or bridged by more or less organisational arrangements such as flying bishops, or the creation of a third ecclesial province or such like.  Where mutual recognition and communion between bishops does not exist or no longer exists, where one can therefore no longer concelebrate the eucharist, then no church communion, at least no full church communion and thus no eucharistic communion can exist.

Arrangements like those I have referred to can only cover over the breach superficially;  they can paper over the cracks, but they cannot heal the division;  one can even go one step further and say that from the Catholic perspective they are the unspoken institutionalisation, manifestation and virtual legitimation of an existing schism.

When such a situation becomes a reality, it is not a purely inner-Anglican matter, but also has consequences for the ecumenical relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church.  We had invested great hopes and expectations in the Catholic-Anglican dialogue.  Following the historic encounter of Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey on 24 March 1966 – 40 years ago now – ARCIC was, together with the Lutheran–Catholic and the Methodist–Catholic dialogues, among the first dialogues we initiated after the Second Vatican Council.  Since that time it has in many respects brought great progress, for which we thank God and all those who have taken part.  Thus the meeting of Catholic and Anglican bishops in Toronto-Mississauga (2000) was filled with great hopes.

The progress made relates not least to the question of a shared understanding of ministries.  Even in the first phase of dialogue positive results were achieved in this fundamental question, and later we were able to expand upon these gains.  Besides the official dialogue there was a thorough historical and theological discussion of the Bull of Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae (1896) (DS 3315-3319).  All of these discussions have not led to a conclusive resolution or to a full consensus, but they achieved a pleasing rapprochement that justifiably aroused promising expectations.

But then the growing practice of the ordination of women to priesthood led to an appreciable cooling-off.  A resolution in favour of the ordination of women to the episcopate within the Church of England would most certainly lower the temperature once more;  in terms of the possible recognition of Anglican Orders, it would lead not only to a short-lived cold, but to a serious and long-lasting chill.  

Three provinces within the Anglican Communion have already ordained women to the episcopate;  several other provinces have authorized such ordinations, though none have taken place in the latter to this point.  These developments already stand as a major obstacle in Anglican–Catholic relations.  But the Catholic Church has always perceived the Church of England as playing a unique role 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. 

Because the episcopal office is a ministry of unity, the decision you face would immediately impact on the question of the unity of the Church and with it the goal of ecumenical dialogue.  It would be a decision against the common goal we have until now pursued in our dialogue: full ecclesial communion, which cannot exist without full communion in the episcopal office.

Such a decision broadly taken within the Anglican Communion would mean turning away from the common position of all churches of the first millennium, that is, not only the Catholic Church but also the ancient Eastern and the Orthodox churches.  It would, in our view, further call into question what was recognised by the Second Vatican Council (UR, 13), that the Anglican Communion occupied ‘a special place’ among churches and ecclesial communities of the West.  We would see the Anglican Communion as moving a considerable distance closer to the side of the Protestant churches of the 16th century.  It would indeed continue to have bishops, according to the Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888);  but as with bishops within some Protestant churches, the older churches of East and West would recognise therein much less of what they understand to be the character and ministry of the bishop in the sense understood by the early church and continuing through the ages. 

Amidst all of this, the question arises which also occupied John Henry Newman: is the so-called via media a viable path?  Where and on what side does the Anglican Communion stand, where will it stand in the future? Which orientation does it claim as its own: the Latin, Greek, Protestant, Liberal or Evangelical? It may retreat to the Anglican principle of comprehensiveness and answer: We are a little of everything.  Such comprehensiveness is doubtless a good principle to a certain degree, but it should not be overdone, as my predecessor Cardinal Edward Cassidy once told you: one arrives at limits where one must decide one way or the other.  For without identity no society, least of all a church, can continue to survive.  The decision you are facing is therefore an historic decision.

What follows from these conclusions and questions? What follows for the future of our ecumenical dialogue? One thing is certain: the Catholic Church will not break off the dialogue even in the case of such a decision.  It will above all not break off the personal relationships and friendships which have developed over the past years and decades.  But there is a difference between types of dialogue.  The quality of the dialogue would be altered by such a decision.  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.

Following that action we could still come together for the sake of information and consultation;  we could continue to discuss and attempt to clarify theological issues, to cooperate in many practical spheres and to give shared witness.  Above all we could unite in joint prayer and pray for one another.  All of that is, God knows, not negligible.  But the loss of the common goal would necessarily have an effect on such encounters and rob them of most of their élan and their internal dynamic.  Above all – and this is the most painful aspect – the shared partaking of the one Lord’s table, which we long for so earnestly, would disappear into the far and ultimately unreachable distance.  Instead of moving towards one another we would co-exist alongside one another.

For many that may seem a more realistic path than what we have attempted previously, but whether it is in accordance with the binding last will and testament of Jesus, ‘that all may be one’ (Jn, 17,21) is of course another question.  The answer would have to be in the negative.  I ask you: Is that what we want? Are we permitted to do that? Should we not ponder what Cyprian tells us, namely that the seamless robe of Jesus Christ cannot be possessed by those who tear apart and divide the church of Christ (De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 1,6)?

IV

That brings me back once more in conclusion to a consideration of the fundamental principles.  I have quoted our common Church Father, Cyprian.  In conclusion I would like to refer to another shared Church Father, Augustine, and to one who must be particularly close to you, the Venerable Bede.  Both of them took up Cyprian’s ideas.

Cyprian had illustrated his thesis of the ‘episcopatus unus et indivisus’ through a series of metaphors: the metaphor of the sun which has many rays but only one light;  of the tree which has many branches but only one trunk grounded in one sturdy root, and of many streams which spring from one single source.  Then he states: ‘Cut off one of the sun’s rays – the unity of the light permits no division;  break off a branch of the tree and it can bud no more;  dam off a spring from its source, it dries up below the cut.’ (De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 1,5). 

Augustine took up these metaphors more than once in his text Contra Cresconium.  I will quote just one instance: ‘Avelle radium solis a corpore, divisionem lucis unitas non capit: ab arbore frange ramum, fructus germinare non poterit: a fonte praecide rivum, praecisus arescit’ (lib II 33.42).  [Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light;  break a branch from a the tree, - when broken, it will not be able to bud;  cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up.]  Similarly, the Venerable Bede says in a homily: ‘Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur qui ab apostolis omnibnus tunc unianima consensione pascebatur.’   [All are shepherds but one flock is revealed.  Then it was fed by all the apostles with harmonious agreement.]

‘Grex unus, qui unianima consensione pascitur’, that is the aim of ecumenical dialogue;  it can only succeed if the unianima consensio of every single one of the separated churches is preserved and is then constituted step by step between those separated ecclesial bodies.  May this, in spite of all the difficulties and resistance, be granted to us one day by the grace of God.

Appendix:

Address of Pope Benedict XVI 

to the clergy of Rome on 2 March 2006

‘Thus, the Church has a great debt of gratitude to women.  And you have correctly emphasized that at a charismatic level, women do so much, I would dare to say, for the government of the Church, starting with women Religious, with the Sisters of the great Fathers of the Church such as St Ambrose, to the great women of the Middle Ages – St Hildegard, St Catherine of Siena, then St Teresa of Avila – and lastly, Mother Teresa.  I would say that this charismatic sector is undoubtedly distinguished by the ministerial sector in the strict sense of the term, but it is a true and deep participation in the government of the Church. 

‘How could we imagine the government of the Church without this contribution, which sometimes becomes very visible, such as when St Hildegard criticized the Bishops or when St Bridget offered recommendations and St Catherine of Siena obtained the return of the Popes to Rome? It has always been a crucial factor without which the Church cannot survive. 

‘However, you rightly say:  we also want to see women more visibly in the government of the Church.  We can say that the issue is this:  the priestly ministry of the Lord, as we know, is reserved to men, since the priestly ministry is government in the deep sense, which, in short, means it is the Sacrament [of Orders] that governs the Church. 

‘This is the crucial point.  It is not the man who does something, but the priest governs, faithful to his mission, in the sense that it is the Sacrament, that is, through the Sacrament it is Christ himself who governs, both through the Eucharist and in the other Sacraments, and thus Christ always presides. 

‘However, it is right to ask whether in ministerial service – despite the fact that here Sacrament and charism are the two ways in which the Church fulfils herself – it might be possible to make more room, to give more offices of responsibility to women.’