I posted the following text a few days ago on an internet discussion board under an article devoted to the Ordinariate for former Anglicans. Since I am a vain and self-opinionated man, I decided to reproduce it here with slight corrections.
In my opinion we have to do with a long-term formation process of the basic (basic, because within the both of them there are many variants) visions or models of the Catholic Christianity. The first one is centered upon Rome, and the other one (which is already the first difference between them) is multi-polar. Although both the visions are about founding the best possible answer to the question how to serve God, how to respond to the call of the Gospel, the differences between them are vast. The issues of the ordination of women and the LGBT persons – though for various reasons important – are, from another perspective, only a litmus paper. What is the essence of it, however? I think that, given the fact these visions are still in the process of formation, it is too early to give an unequivocal answer to that question, but if I were to make such an attempt anyway, I would say that what this comes down to are different approaches to the INCARNATION.
"Incarnation", Edward Longo
The thing is whether we are able to draw conclusions from the fact that “the Word became flesh”. What does it mean that the eternal Logos has incarnated, what does it mean that God entered the human reality, history, culture and materiality in general? In light of this question a reinterpretation of the Christian tradition will be taking place, one comparable – in my opinion – with what happened in the age of the Church Fathers. Many basic elements of doctrine and practice will have to be subjected to criticism.
The two centers will attract different people. While the “Roman” one will be attractive for those who seek in religion mostly “unquestionable” certainties, “eternal” truths and rules which would establish an order in their lives, around the other will gather those who are able to endure the tension resulting from the awareness that THE ONLY TRUTH which Christianity knows is not a sum of doctrines or “the moral teaching”, but THE PERSON OF THE INCARNATE ONE himself, and (here Personalism “sends its regards”) there is at least one thing we know about a person: that it can’t be defined by fixed formulas. A person is always dynamic, always in motion, in process, changeability is its constitutive feature. Therefore everything we say about the Person of the Incarnate One has the value of a symbol, which points at him, refers to him, but is never IDENTICAL WITH HIM. Every attempt to identify a person with a symbol which points at them, leads to depriving the person of their dynamics, and so basically to questioning their being as a person.
This, of course, is an EXTREAMLY SIMPLIFIED SCHEME, which, in one sense, doesn’t do justice to either model. The reality is and always will remain much more complicated. It seems to me, however, that these two centers will in some degree dominate the map of (at least the European and North American) Christianity, while the differences between them will become far more important than the old ones, which originated for example from the 16th century Reformation. Already now the West European Old-Catholic churches, despite historically defined differences, are able to reach an excellent agreement with, for instance, the Scandinavian Lutherans, while the conservative (or perhaps reactionary, because what they want is not longer to preserve the current state of things, but to reverse the changes that had happened) Anglicans are looking for their spiritual home in Rome.
We have to realize, of course, that people are not models. In every one of us there exist – and compete – elements of both the visions. It will be difficult for many of us to make a choice, and for many it will be a difficult one (for, unfortunately, once again made at the expense of something…). The same applies to the communities we belong to. Some people and some communities will probably refuse to opt for one of the sides, and their stance will perhaps become a leaven of new ecumenical dialog. Finally one which won’t – in grand style – celebrate solving problems from many years ago, about which almost no one cares today, but, thinking about the future, will take up the problems that are truly up-to-date. For beyond any doubt we are facing the fundamental choice whether to look for models mainly in the past and conserve them at any expense in the name of “being faithful to the tradition”, or to, not forgetting that the church has already a two thousand years history, consistently opt for Christianity and Catholicism, which are always ahead of us, which are a matter of the future that God opens before us.
Something else seems of utmost importance to me at this moment, though: that this controversy, which has been increasing for years, is as small an obstacle as possible in looking for possibilities to COOPERATE for the sake of others: people in need, the whole creation which awaits justice, love and peace expressed by deeds. It is, in any case, where we should meet one another, all the more so because this, and nothing else, is what our witness’ credibility depends on.
Excellent! The multi-polar model is messy and often frustrating to work with, but is more flexible and can also accomodate the best elements of the Tradition.
I can follow the distinction the author makes between these two models and I think it is a very important one. What I cannot understand is why the doctrine-centred model is associated with Rome. In the churches of the Reformation and indeed in many Evangelical churches we can observe the same doctrine-centredness, while these churches are often strongly opposed to the Roman Catholic church. When reactionary Anglicans turn to Rome, they only represent part of a group that is more interested in doctrine than in a person. Also, when Roman Catholics become Anglicans, which still happens, they are not always free from a doctrinal focus. Some actually make the change because their local RC church has become too liberal. Perhaps this situation is more likely to occur in the Netherlands than elsewhere, but I would still not point at the RC church as the main centre of rigid and literal rule-oriented Christianity. On the contrary, I have found it cherishing contemplation and mysticism, which are often completely missing in protestant churches. Fortunately there is a certain amount of this in the Anglican church as well. That mysticism is often directed at the Person of Christ. So I would say that the greater danger is to be found in fundamentalism, especially when combined with church politics, and this is to be found in many churches. It is no accident that many people have said they cannot experience true spirituality in any church. So I am not at all sure in what kind of camps Christians will be divided in 50 years time, but I am sure the picture will not be less complex than it is at the moment.
Dear Jaap,
Thank you for your commentary. I have to start by saying you are simply right. The above text was originally a part of a discussion about the Ordinariate for former Anglicans, and that is why it is so focused on the distinction between Rome and the other model. In the process of writing, the scope of it was becoming broader and broader, but the focus remained. When I was preparing it to post on the blog, I too asked myself the question how, for example, the fundamentalist Protestant communities are positioned in that scheme. On the one hand, there is truly no place for them, but on the other that place really is there. In order to explain it, however, I have to write something more about my vision of Protestantism. Firstly, I will refer to Paul Tillich, who wrote about the Protestant and Catholic principles. These principles are not identical with the actually existing denominations. Every church is built upon either of them, and depending on which principle is dominant, we identify it as either a Protestant or a Catholic church. In my opinion, the Reformation has not overcome the Catholic paradigm. You certainly know the Dutch term “papieren paus”. In the Protestant churches the Bible was often placed at the same position which in the Catholic Church is occupied by the pope (it is worth noting that the dogma of papal infallibility was created almost at the same time when the fundamentalist reaction to Liberalism began in the Protestant churches). Recently I have been debating a little bit with the Protestant fundamentalists, and it appeared to me that, in one sense, they present a “very Catholic” way of thinking. What I mean is that at the surface they will always remain very opposed to Rome, but on a deeper level they use, for instance, very old schemes of the Medieval Scholasticism. Often not knowing it themselves, they are great disciples of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example. Recently I heard a joke: an Evangelical preacher proclaimed Jesus had called him. That was the good news. The bad news was he had called from Rome. I don’t claim that the Protestant fundamentalists will sooner or later become Roman Catholics, but at a certain level, despite their anti-Roman attitude, they belong to the group “centered upon Rome”.
The other issue you mentioned is the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands. I think you are right that some situations are more likely to occur there than elsewhere. It can be long discussed what is the typical Roman Catholicism, and we probably won’t be able to answer that question, but I think we can agree that it’s not the Dutch Catholicism. As far as the mystic dimension goes, I absolutely agree with you. I too would like for that aspect to be more prevalent in Anglicanism. I believe we both were blessed by the ministry of Fr. Brian Richards in Haarlem. One could disagree with him in concrete matters, but one thing is sure: mysticism was really present in his preaching, the way he celebrated the Eucharist and his pastoral care. I miss it very much.
Greetings,
Jarek