Benedict decried the “splintering” of Christian churches over “so-called ‘prophetic actions’ that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition.” Such actions, he said, cause Christian communities to “give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of ‘local options,'” thus losing their connections to Christians in other times and places. Some, but not all, interpreted that as a veiled reference to controversy in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
“I think he did us the honor of giving us a serious address that I think needs to be read and reflected upon,” said New York’s Bishop Mark Sisk. Asked whether he thought Benedict had singled out the Episcopal Church in his remarks, Sisk responded, “It’s possible–but I would be rather surprised. I don’t think he was trying to send shots across the bow at particular churches. I think he spoke in a respectful way and I didn’t see that as a shot at the Episcopal Church.”
Were there any other Episcopalians who were invited to attend, other than the two mentioned in the article who did attend?
The quote from Bp Sisk leaves me wondering if he expected the Pope to speak disrespectfully towards TEC.
I think the fact that Benedict mentioned specifically churches claiming “prophetic actions” as well as a lack of diachronic interpretation of Scripture suggests he was looking right at TEC. The order of the receiving line also suggests some disapproving view of TEC when Bp Sisk comes up at the end of the line behind the Baptists and Presbyterians.
This is the sort of report I’d expect from ENS.
According to a priest who was there and emailed info, in addition to Bishop Sisk there was present the Archdeacon and Vicar General of the diocese of New York, as well as Fr. Barry Swain SSC of Resurrection NYC, Fr. Andrew Mead of St. Thomas Fifth Avenue NYC and Fr. Michael Brandt of St. Michael’s NYC.
The important thing, of course, is that the Pope is speaking the truth.
That’s a very very interesting group of invitees, stjohnsrector. Was Barry’s partner there with him too?
“Moi? MOI?!” TEC resembles Miss Piggy a little more each day…..
I don’t think Mark Sisk would see a gorilla in his living room, I mean, atrium.
The question Bishop Sisk was asked was whether he felt TEC was singled out by the Pope’s address. Given what Benedict said, his remarks could easily be aimed at any number of American denominations. I suspect he would see ordination of women and more open positions on family planning and marriage issues also as false ‘prophetic innovations.’ TEC is not alone in any of those.
However, I don’t see how you could deny his remarks included TEC. I don’t think Bishop Sisk was quoted as saying they did, either.
Dirk C. Reinken.
I meant to say I don’t think Bishop Sisk was denying that the Pope’s remarks included TEC, just that they weren’t necessarily singling out TEC.
Dirk+
Sarah asked what other TEC representatives were invited. From the article:
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was invited to the service, but was unable to attend due to a previous commitment to bless a new diocesan center in Utah. Bishop Christopher Epting, the Episcopal Church’s ecumenical officer, represented her.
“I put no particular weight on the Pope’s references to our ‘big eyes,’
‘long ears,’ and ‘sharp teeth.’ We are peaceful, vegetarian shepherds, as is well known to all all enlightened people”
Lol, Irenaeus! Brilliant! You’ve nailed it.
“I didn’t see that as a shot at the Episcopal Church.” Oh, really? It sure wasn’t a 21-gun salute! More like a broadside, if you ask me!
I could imagine a pharisee saying the same of Jesus.
More precisely, its easy to see this as a condemnation of the whole reformed tradition.
That is, anyone who isn’t a Roman Catholic.
It’s clearly a viable – and intellectually sound – position. Alas, it’s not easy to discuss how we distinguish between different hermeneutical standpoints in a blog….
She missed the Pope to dedicate an office building in Utah? Why, of course. Buildings, under the Schori-Beers regime, have greater importance than people and faith – as their actions demonstrate every day. Why would she want to visit with the Pope?
I find the excuse that she had a prior commitment feeble. I suspect it is more likely to be the case that both sides acknowledged the awkwardness if not inappropriateness for these two to interact. The issue of women clergy let alone a female PB is rather awkward for the Roman Catholic Church to acknowledge – almost as awkward as it was for Bp. Sisk to recognize the truths the Holy Father spoke were clearly in reference to the Episcopal Church.
Bp Sisk’s response highlights for us the outcome/fruit of a reprobate mind. This is a sad day for the Episcopal Church.
RE: “More precisely, its easy to see this as a condemnation of the whole reformed tradition.”
Not really — although for some it appears to be.
#15 – let’s pass over the linkage of Pope Benedict to the pharisees and note that it’s not the whole reformed tradition being addressed, but a fairly specific contemporary phenomenon. You could, of course apply the comment to the 16th century reformation project, but that would probably be over-reading the pope, given the context of the comment. Anyway, as I posted on another thread, some people are suggesting, credibly, IMO, that he was addressing not only protestants in reformed churches, but protestants within the Catholic Church (i.e., those who dissent from the Church’s teachings).
I do think it was aimed at TEC. I do think that Rome has a special investment in our case. This is not to overvalue ourselves, but rather a simple review of ecumenical history.
John Wilkins, there’s a whole lot of Christians who are neither RC nor in the reformed tradition. Think ‘O’. 🙂
#19 – “protestants that disagree with the church’s teachings.” Do you mean those who verbally disagree, or those who simply ignore it.
If the latter, you’d probably mean most American Catholics. I meet lots of Catholics who say to me, “well, we all believe the same thing.”
Of course, you ask the question as an Episcopalian, and I’ll answer it as a Catholic, so perhaps you don’t find the answer meaningful, but it’s irrelevant whether people verbalize their private opinions or not.
Now, I meet “lots of Catholics” who actually believe the Catholic Faith. There being “lots of Catholics” in general, neither your statement nor mine proves much of anything. One of the most interesting comments on this subject (recently, at least) was that of Deacon Bresnahan, who noted that we don’t have comparison data over time, so that information on what Catholics believe (even if the survey was valid and relevant) at this point is meaningless.