Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday that he is praying there will not be any more rifts in the Anglican community following the recent Church of England decision on women bishops.
Answering questions from journalists aboard his flight to Australia, Benedict touched briefly on the turmoil in the Anglican church.
“I am praying so that there are no more schisms and fractures” within the Anglican community, Benedict said.
A curious prayer for a man who is likely taking steps, even as we debate this issue, to receive large numbers of Anglo-Catholics into communion with the Roman Church. I for one can not agree with the sentiments expressed here. Schism by its very definition means a separation from the legitimate authority of The Church. Heresy negates that legitimacy and the authority that would come from it.
See St. Cyprian’s De Unitate.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
It is possible the Holy Father is hoping that the AC don’t take any further schism-creating steps, like introducing the worship of Asherah during Mass (to please the feminists), or asking for prayers to Baal or Isis, or so on, which doesn’t seem far fetched, these days. 😉
Just to follow up what I said a little more seriously – the Pope can’t browbeat people in the Church, and he is concerned for those souls who can’t, for whatever reason, come over yet. Things can still get worse; it would be bad enough as they are, but you know that many, many changes are waiting in the wings that will further harm the souls still in the AC, and the Holy Father is praying against the advent of such changes. For now, it’s best to offer a welcome to those who wish convert and pray for those who have not yet come over, that they not be subjected to further spiritual distress.
The pope finds Anglicanism useful for many reasons. One of the prominent ones, I expect, is that we provide a “safety valve” for Rome. We get a lot of their dissidents, along with other good folks who find their law too heavy a burden to bear.
Also, Benedict is an eminent scholar and, as such, probably enjoys spirited discussion. The AC has the discussions that Rome won’t permit and, while I’m sure he disagrees with much of what comes out of them, I’ll bet the scholarly part of his makeup is still intrigued by them. There IS an important place in Christendom for Anglicanism.
John, I’m sure the pope and his advisors are being quite realistic about these supposed masses heading for Rome. Sure, some folks will swim the Tiber but it likely won’t be the masses you’re saying. The announcements come from hurt and bewilderment after the Synod votes. Benedict knows the outcry will settle down and I commend him for his restraint.
[i] along with other good folks who find their law too heavy a burden to bear.[/i]
I may reveal myself as shockingly naive, but as a recent traveler from Canterbury (or 816) to Rome, I certainly understand more clearly the perception that Rome is “legalistic,” perhaps to the point of crushing genuine relationship with God. HOWEVER, what I personally came to realize was that “rules” and “law” are not the point. Our submission to the will of God, to the presence of Christ revealed in the Eucharist, IS the point.
[b]IF[/b] we believe that Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity, in the eucharist, then what does that mean for us, his Church? What does it mean to a member of the body of Christ? What are our obligations to a God who is truly present to us every single day? And what is the Church’s role in helping us to understand these truths? Yes, it is the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantion. And I believe that makes all the difference in the world.
#5 — I went from Rome to Canterbury. I could not equate some of Rome’s laws and practices with “the will of God.” To suggest that people like myself aren’t willing to submit to God’s will because we can’t submit to everything Rome does and declares is, well, insulting. And, before you assert that I’m some sort of “cafeteria” type of believer, do realize that Rome and Constantinople don’t agree on some things, either, but Rome recognizes the Orthodox as a “true church,” too.
Re #s 5&6;I would encourage you to read Metropolitan John Zizioulas’ stunning work EUCHARIST, BISHOP, CHURCH: THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN THE DIVINE EUCHARIST AND THE BISHOP DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. It is neither light nor short reading. But it is one of the best theological discussions on The Church that I have ever read.
It may be found here. http://tinyurl.com/5hs7qv
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
My two cents as a convert to the RCC. And I can only speak from my personal observation.
Catholics are most assuredly not waiting breathlessly for masses or even any Anglican converts to arrive. In my parish, for years there has been steady stream of Anglicans but no flood. Most Catholics don’t notice and really don’t care. The RCs that are truly engaged are too busy worrying about Catholic concerns. I wonder if that is not where the Pope’s frame of reference is.
Individually, certainly you are welcome if you have come to believe what we believe. Maybe there will be (for a short period of time) special arrangements are made for small groups of people to come in as a group. But overall, it is not a big deal for us.
There is much talk of the addition to the RCC of the beauty of the Anglican liturgy, but Roman Catholics also have beautiful liturgies. It is more a matter of reclaiming our inheritance, so again it is not seen as a plus in the United States.
And frankly I feel compelled to say that many RCs that I know are somewhat leery of Anglicans for a number of reasons including the experience that Anglicans are some of the most anti-Catholics amongst Christians.
So why am I posting on an Anglican website? Probably my point of view as a convert makes me familiar with some of the issues. But mostly I am here to learn the tactics and strategies that are used to move a Christian Church from orthodox theology. Anglican websites are amazing in teaching how it was done. I want to be better prepared to combat similar tactics and strategies in my Church.
Comment on a comment by #4 teatime who said: “The pope (Pope is perhaps a little more ecumenical) finds Anglicans useful for many reasons.”
Are you kidding? What power over Anglicans can Pope Benedict XVI possibly have? How could he find Anglicanism useful? And given the size and the problems of the RCC, how much time do you think he can give to think about Anglicans? I think a little thought on this would indicate that this supposition is not likely.
#9 — Exactly where did I say that “Anglicans have power over the pope”? Please read the entire post and if you’re not sure what I’m saying, simply ask me for clarification instead of asserting something I didn’t even come close to saying.
And I will do the same. In your post #8, you say you come to Anglican sites to learn about the tactics used against us so you can combat them in your own church. Does that mean that the RCC is under similar assault and that there are inadequacies in your hierarchy to deter it? (Please know that I’m ASKING and not asserting anything.)
One more thing, #8. I didn’t capitalize “pope” because I didn’t use his full name. The rules of journalistic style and grammar state that you do NOT capitalize titles unless the full name follows. As a former editor and English instructor, I follow those rules when I write. It has nothing to do with being “ecumenical” or not.
I thnk that this Pope truly cares about us. He supported us at Plano and while he might pray that we convert to RC, failing that, he supports orthodox Anglicans.
#10 and #11 teatime
I apologize for my post on the capitalization. You are right and I am wrong.
As far as the “power”:
My point was that the Holy Father has no control over whether RCs decide to convert to Anglicanism. Implicit in your statement is that if B16 no longer found Anglicanism useful as a “safety valve” for RC dissidents, he could do something about it. But, of course, he can’t. I was addressing the idea that B16 can find Anglicans “useful” for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church and that he did not have regard for the health of the Anglican Communion. I wrote “What power over Anglicans can Benedict XVI have?”, and you appear to have read my question as “Anglicans have power over the pope.” (You may have issues with me about how I interpreted your original statement, of course.)
As far as liberal/progressive theology and practice in the RCC, we live in the same world and we have similar issues. However, the most pressing issues (WO, same sex marriage) faced by many Christian communities are less pressing for us at this time. At this point, our issues tend to be more at the local level (archdiocese and parish) and they tend to revolve around education of all kinds, catechism, and liturgy. One of the most disheartening is the issue of abortion and the role that politicians who call themselves Catholic play. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
The Magisterium does protect us in the bigger scheme of things, but then one goes directly to the local level of the archbishop or bishop and things can be more uneven.
Some of my best friends were involved with struggles over changes after Vatican II. The local practices were never intended by Vatican II, but it took forever to stop them. One example is that the sacrament was offered en masse by the local priest rather than through individual confession. There has never been acceptable, but it took time to stop this practice at one church.
Much easier to equate Canterbury’s bizarre circus with “the will of God”.
I went from Rome to Canterbury. I could not equate some of Rome’s laws and practices with “the will of God.†To suggest that people like myself aren’t willing to submit to God’s will because we can’t submit to everything Rome does and declares is, well, insulting. And, before you assert that I’m some sort of “cafeteria†type of believer, do realize that Rome and Constantinople don’t agree on some things, either, but Rome recognizes the Orthodox as a “true church,†too.
Thank you teatime for refreshingly stating what should be manifestly obvious on a conservative Anglican site. I agree with your stand.
As an Anglican presbyter, I appreciate the concern of Pope Benedict and thank him for his prayers. That being said, none of us know yet if/how/when former Anglicans will be received [i]en masse[/i]. That is neither here nor there, for the present. It will be difficult enough for Roman clergy to deal with individual Anglican refugees who will insist on bringing on-board a lot of their baggage. I am suspecting that many will be unprepared to just travel lightly. I was raised as a Roman Catholic converted to and was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church, ordained and raised my family in the Orthodox Church before we became Anglicans. Just as nations look for political stability in their neighbors, the Pope is looking for ecclesiastical stability in the Anglican Communion. Would that the present Archbishop of Canterbury were so concerned. He is rather like a substitute teacher who has lost control of the classroom. It’s time to call the Principal. It will be interesting to see what kind of relations, if any, will develop between the Vatican and the GAFCON Primates.
I would say that the pope is merely being a nice guy in allowing the Anglicans to get themselves sorted out or not before the Roman Catholic Church begins making any announcements. Aside from the Anglicans in communion with Canterbury who may be headed towards Rome, there is also the TAC that is waiting in the wings. Discussions with that body have been ongoing for some time. It stands to reason we’ll be hearing about that before any announcements on those disenchanted with the Church of England’s recent moves.