Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ
Vicar's letter
|
Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ |
Vicar's letter |
|
In 1966 Archbishop Michael Ramsey visited Pope Paul VI in Rome and they agreed to start a process of theological discussions designed to go back to the scriptures and the witness of the early church as well as looking at the concerns of the contemporary world to see to what extent the differences between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church, largely products of developments between the later middle ages and the enlightenment, can be overcome.
Two commissions known as Arcic 1 and Arcic 2 (Anglican – Roman Catholic International Commission) have now come to the end of their work. Arcic 1 reported on issues of Eucharist, Ministry and Authority. Arcic 2 has reported on further issues of authority, on the meaning of communion and on making moral decisions. In May 2005 the last report of Arcic 2 was published on the place of Mary in the Christian life. It is hoped that Archbishop Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict XVI may be able to commission Arcic 3 and set out the topics for them to investigate.
Each of these reports sets out what we clearly can hold in common and what still divides us. The Lambeth Conference of 1988 recognised the Arcic 1 reports as substantially reflecting Anglican understandings. In 1992 the Vatican’s Congregation for the Defence of the Faith (headed by Cardinal Ratzinger) expressed some reservations about this report. The conversations continue.
Differences in understanding of the place of Mary started in the late middle ages when in the eyes of some, devotion to Mary was tended to obscure the role of Christ in redemption. The reformers reacted against this and greatly reduced the place of Mary in Christian thinking and devotion. In 1854 the Pope promulgated the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and in 1950 that of the Assumption of Mary. These have caused further differences. In the early 1960’s the 2nd Vatican Council placed understanding of Mary in relationship to the understanding of the Church and this has resulted in more fruitful thinking.
Arcic 2 sought to look at what the scriptures said about Mary and the witness of the early church. Major meetings were held in Paris, Dublin, Florida and Seattle. Perhaps more importantly for the process, smaller groups met to draft particular parts of the report at Chevetogne, a monastery in Belgium. This monastery has two chapels; one follows the western liturgy and the other the liturgy of the eastern church. The monastery has a strong ecumenical tradition; usually one or two Anglican priests share the life there for a number of years, among them John Sclater who was with us this year for the first three days in holy week. Here there was an opportunity to experience eastern devotion to Mary. This tends to oppose strict definitions such as those emanating from Rome in 1854 and 1950. Eastern theologians, however, tend to accept the doctrine of the Assumption but not that of the Immaculate Conception which they feel tends to obscure the role of Mary as the model disciple co operating positively with God as she freely accepted God’s call through the angle Gabriel to become the Mother of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and so Mother of God.
This new report clearly sets Mary’s role in clear relationship to Christ. Mary is seen as an inspiration and model for discipleship. The witness of the scriptures to Mary clearly point to her place as inspiring grace and hope in Christ. The report proposes that it should not be required that Christians accept the definitions of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and assumption at the same time they should be respected as attempts to encapsulate important elements of Christian experience and understanding.
I see this report as one that has the potential to both inspire the quality of life in Christ within the Anglican Communion as well as one which will increase understanding and sympathy between Anglican and Roman Catholics. It is important that in imagination readers of the report use it to challenge their immediate reactions and ponder what is set out. Readers lack that vital experience of the compilers of the report in examining with experts the scriptures, the experience of the early church and the eastern churches as well as their own praying together and conversations. I hope this report will be taken seriously throughout the churches and be fruitful for our life as disciples.
Christopher Morgan–Jones
|
