Dr Empey finds Vatican document confusing
Karen
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/1031/hom9.htm
The Archbishop of Dublin, Most Rev Walton Empey, has said the Vatican's
controversial Dominus Iesus document was a "most confusing document".
Interviewed in a book to be published next week, The Irish Soul: In
Dialogue, the Church of Ireland Archbishop referred to "theological
inconsistencies" in the Vatican's controversial document that was published
last year.
In it the Vatican asserted that true faith subsists in the Catholic Church,
while other Christian denominations were not proper churches and all other
religions were seriously deficient.
"Every baptised Christian - baptised in the Holy Trinity - was a full
Christian (where the Catholic Church is concerned) and yet the Church to
which you belonged was not. I fail to understand how you can be two-thirds
Christian or 99 per cent a Christian! It was a confusing document," he said.
He agreed with the interviewer that "the vast majority of Catholics tend not
to read these documents, or they dismiss them anyway".
That "is what I find," he said, "I have been invited to (the) annual meeting
of the National Council of Priests in Ireland every year for the last five
years and I find it a most exciting place to be - there's a huge wealth of
talent, experience and a good deal of scholarship right there, and I don't
think it ruffled their feathers too much."
He agreed also that many Catholics "simply don't toe the papal line on
divorce, homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, etc. They are more
Protestant in their thinking."
He said, "that's that liberal wing ... It really is a mirror image of
ourselves, in many ways."
Where the presence of Christ in communion is concerned he was not going to
apply the categories of Greek philosophy. "No, I am not.We will not and have
never attempted to do that."
He referred to a radio discussion on Dominus Iesus between a Catholic priest
and Canon Ian Ellis. The C of I Canon said: "I was very surprised to hear
Seamus (the Catholic priest) say the foundation for theology is philosophy.
We would believe that the foundation of theology is the New Testament."
Dr Empey said, "That put it in a nutshell. That's the difference between the
two traditions. You should have spoken to my predecessor, Donald Caird. He's
a philosopher, which I never was and never will be. Himself and Des Connell
used to go off into corners and talk philosophy."
Dr Empey was forthright on the issue of the papal authority. He didn't
believe "for one minute" that Christ appointed Peter as Pope, "because
subsequently, when the first council was held in Jerusalem, James seemed to
be the senior there".
The "rock" was "the rock of faith, the rock of Peter's faith. That's the way
we read it. I think it's a huge step to move from that into primacy and the
next step into infallibility," he said, and he knew "many Roman Catholic
priest friends would say that too."
He said "papal infallibility is very suspect," while most Anglicans would
regard the Pope "as first among equals in terms of Christian leadership".
He saw the controversy over President McAleese receiving communion in
Christchurch Cathedral as "a problem for the Roman Catholic Church".
"We have bitter pills on our side too, who will take the letter of the law
for everything rather than what lies behind it," he said.
He referred to himself in modest terms during the interview, beginning one
answer with "to my simple mind ...", and said the interviewer could speak to
"far more erudite people than I am".
He continued: "I am no scholar. In fact, it's one of the things I find
difficult about my position. Whatever gift I may have, I am afraid it's
rather pastoral more than scholarly and I do find that to be, quite frankly,
a drawback."