Hello! I appreciate this post, Fr. Sean, since your interview on Gospel Simplicity was (maybe) the first time I encountered you or your reflections on the things of the Church. I am an Episcopal priest in Franklin, Louisiana, and ecumenism is similarly one of the central callings in my life.
With that, I appreciate some day-dreaming over what it might look like for the Lord to reveal the Church's unity. I suppose I am interested to hear more--how you will unpack different parts of this vision for the Church. At first blush, though, I have to admit that the vision you set forth does not quite stir my heart for some reason. I do have some reservations, even though I agree with a lot of what you suggested. But maybe the stirring of the heart will come as I sit with it a bit more.
My favorite part of your day-dream was a question you proposed: "How did this happen?" I think judgment must be the ultimate explanation. But why? Why has the Lord allowed all these things? Why has the Lord handed us over to these divisions? I think those are fascinating questions. I wonder if some of your upcoming posts might grapple with them.
My hunch is that if we can glean any wisdom here, we might begin to glimpse some of the contours of the Church that the Lord is preparing. However, just as judgment must be the ultimate backstory, so resurrection must be the ultimate solution. When Fr. Ephraim Radner recently appeared on Gospel Simplicity, he movingly stated: "The unity of the Church is not within our power to effect; we must die, and he must raise us." With that, I think resurrection tends to be surprising, even as it fulfills all that came before.
Nevertheless, I do believe that we can begin to get a feel for the Lord's ways. And these questions (How did all this happen? Why has the Lord brought us under judgment? In what way do we need to be refined and transformed?), surely gleaning insight on these points will help us understand something of what the Lord is bringing about in his Church.
Sean - on sacrifice, I don’t know if you are aware of the excellent Anglican theologian and Professor of Liturgics at Natosha House - Matthew Oliver . He contributed a fantastic essay to a book dedicated to the ecumenical legacy of Joseph Ratzinger . I think his essay is essential reading . The book is linked here .
I like this, I long for unity as well. How would you “maintain” unity between east and west, I’m thinking in terms of filioque controversy. Can there actually be unity there to say that not either side is heretical in a sense? I guess my real struggle is where is the line drawn with regard to essentials of salvation?
Yeah that's a good question. I have a feeling it can be resolved if we're both humble, though. For instance, suppose the filioque was understood as "through the Son". Then the claim the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and Son" would not be opposed to the monarchy of the Father as the principium of divinity. I really think the main reason this hasn't been accepted yet is owing to our felt need to protect historical divides and tribes. But I think historical work needs to (and really can) be done showing how the "through the Son" clause is patristic, Biblical, and reconciles the prevailing concerns.
In terms of whether it needs to be cited in the Nicene creed every Sunday, I don't see why we must and that this cannot be a regional decision.
I’ve never heard it that way before. Is the way you articulated “through the son” from your own personal realization or did you read it somewhere. If so I’d like to read up on it and gain more insight, filioque is my biggest struggle right now. 😅
The phrase, "reveal her unity", in the Eucharistic prayer, always strikes me.
Gospel Simplicity?! I know that guy.
Hello! I appreciate this post, Fr. Sean, since your interview on Gospel Simplicity was (maybe) the first time I encountered you or your reflections on the things of the Church. I am an Episcopal priest in Franklin, Louisiana, and ecumenism is similarly one of the central callings in my life.
With that, I appreciate some day-dreaming over what it might look like for the Lord to reveal the Church's unity. I suppose I am interested to hear more--how you will unpack different parts of this vision for the Church. At first blush, though, I have to admit that the vision you set forth does not quite stir my heart for some reason. I do have some reservations, even though I agree with a lot of what you suggested. But maybe the stirring of the heart will come as I sit with it a bit more.
My favorite part of your day-dream was a question you proposed: "How did this happen?" I think judgment must be the ultimate explanation. But why? Why has the Lord allowed all these things? Why has the Lord handed us over to these divisions? I think those are fascinating questions. I wonder if some of your upcoming posts might grapple with them.
My hunch is that if we can glean any wisdom here, we might begin to glimpse some of the contours of the Church that the Lord is preparing. However, just as judgment must be the ultimate backstory, so resurrection must be the ultimate solution. When Fr. Ephraim Radner recently appeared on Gospel Simplicity, he movingly stated: "The unity of the Church is not within our power to effect; we must die, and he must raise us." With that, I think resurrection tends to be surprising, even as it fulfills all that came before.
Nevertheless, I do believe that we can begin to get a feel for the Lord's ways. And these questions (How did all this happen? Why has the Lord brought us under judgment? In what way do we need to be refined and transformed?), surely gleaning insight on these points will help us understand something of what the Lord is bringing about in his Church.
Godspeed as you continue to work on these things!
shc+
Sean - on sacrifice, I don’t know if you are aware of the excellent Anglican theologian and Professor of Liturgics at Natosha House - Matthew Oliver . He contributed a fantastic essay to a book dedicated to the ecumenical legacy of Joseph Ratzinger . I think his essay is essential reading . The book is linked here .
https://a.co/d/gdz4aLX
Hi, I am a Charismatic/Pentecostal and I feel as though there is no room for us and what we believe. What would that look like?
I like this, I long for unity as well. How would you “maintain” unity between east and west, I’m thinking in terms of filioque controversy. Can there actually be unity there to say that not either side is heretical in a sense? I guess my real struggle is where is the line drawn with regard to essentials of salvation?
Yeah that's a good question. I have a feeling it can be resolved if we're both humble, though. For instance, suppose the filioque was understood as "through the Son". Then the claim the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and Son" would not be opposed to the monarchy of the Father as the principium of divinity. I really think the main reason this hasn't been accepted yet is owing to our felt need to protect historical divides and tribes. But I think historical work needs to (and really can) be done showing how the "through the Son" clause is patristic, Biblical, and reconciles the prevailing concerns.
In terms of whether it needs to be cited in the Nicene creed every Sunday, I don't see why we must and that this cannot be a regional decision.
I’ve never heard it that way before. Is the way you articulated “through the son” from your own personal realization or did you read it somewhere. If so I’d like to read up on it and gain more insight, filioque is my biggest struggle right now. 😅
This is an excellent resource that's influenced my thinking: https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Filioque-Fathers-Giulio-Maspero/dp/0802883052/ref=asc_df_0802883052?mcid=186d7ebb0a6a3eb896432d3249ac6395&hvocijid=10495852174806279418-0802883052-&hvexpln=73&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=721245378154&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=10495852174806279418&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9021554&hvtargid=pla-2281435179578&psc=1