Observers say the Pope has developed a strong relationship with Dr Williams both as a theologian and as a person.
Although careful not to be seen to be intervening in another church’s difficulties, he is aware that the problems facing Anglicanism could be mirrored in the Catholic Church, with birth control and priesthood celibacy among the points of controversy.
The Pope expressed his support for the Archbishop as he arrived in Australia on Sunday, saying the Anglican Church needed to avoid “further schism and fractures”.
Frankly this sounds like bollocks, from top to bottom. There does not seem to be any evidence that the Holy Father has developed much of any kind of a relationship with Williams, and “the problems facing Anglicanism could be mirrored in the Catholic Church, with birth control and priesthood celibacy among the points of controversy?” LOL! Birth control and celibacy are long, long past being issues in the AC (they are still problems mind you, but worse things plague them now).
I think the Pope’s concern is that we do not become like the AC and “observers” have misread what the Pope said Sunday, though that is hardly a surprise.
This has the fingerprints of the Ambroseden Avenue spin machine all over it.
The Independent (another British paper) has essentially the same news on its front page today.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/pope-rides-to-rowans-rescue-868695.html
Ah, yes: “Catherine Pepinster, editor of the British Catholic newspaper The Tablet, said: “The last thing that Rome wants is a lack of unity in the Anglican Communion, however difficult it finds ecumenical relations with that Communion.” The Tablet. An organ about as Catholic as KJS, and with about the same regard to the Pope. Again, bollocks. Just who are the other sources for the article, I wonder?
Sed contra; vide:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/07/16/benedict_is_encouraging_anglican_converts
wjt
So Damian Thompson, hack on the Daily Telegraph blog pages, is closer to the Pope than the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster (whose request for retirement Rome recently turned down), Cardinal Dias (Head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples) and Cardinal Walter Casper (Chairman of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity)?
OK, now I know.
Try what Pope Benedict XVI actually had to say
“There have been reports”, “Observers say”, “However, these are strongly disputed by sources at Vatican”. About all one needs to know.
Thanks for the link to the actual text, #7. Essentially, all Benedict said was (1) that he was praying for the conference, and (2) that the way forward is to be found in fidelity to the Gospel. Neither statement seems to me to reveal anything new or remotely sensational.
Assuming it is accurately reported (a fairly nebulous assumption), the Pope’s alleged “support” of Williams seems more like a warning.
Granted the Pope may like Rowan and respect him and so on, but the Pope is a man with his eyes on the prize – and the prize is not preserving an heretical institution. I would refer you to Cardinal Ratzinger’s sermon on the eve of his election, which may be found [url=http://tinyurl.com/7nlhk]here[/url].
An excerpt:
[blockquote]Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.
We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An “adult” faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth.
We must develop this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith – only faith – that creates unity and is fulfilled in love. [/blockquote]
The one thing we do know is that we won’t know what Pope Benedict and the CDF are planning, if anything, for for the formal reception of catholic Anglicans until the CDF publicly announces it. Everything we are reading now in various places is pure speculation. The CDF keeps its cards discretely close to its breast.
I hope and pray that a viable arrangement will be made, especially for the Anglo-Catholics in Great Britain but also for the TAC. It is vitally important for the health of the Church that the rich musical, liturgical, and ascetical tradition of Anglicanism be gathered up and re-planted in the soil of the Catholic Church, before it is lost to history.
Will the Vatican act? I do not know. I have been told that something is in the works, yet as one of my Catholic friends likes to quip, “The Vatican never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” This time, I pray, may they get it right.
This:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/what-is-pope-benedict-thinking-about-anglicans/#comments
is one of the most thoughtful reflections on this matter that I have seen to date.
A further thought.
If you want something other than newspaper polemics to become informed about Papa Ratzi’s “take” on Anglicanism, as good a place to begin as any, for English speakers, is the essay “Problems and Prospects of the Anglican-Catholic Dialogue” which the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote and was published in both English and German in 1983, and which has now been republished in the newly-released *Church, Ecumenism & Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology* (Ignatius Press, 2008; ISBN: 978-1-58617-217-6; $19.95), pp. 69-99. I read this essay when it appeared in the journal *Insight* in March 1983, and it has lost none of its topicality; if anything, it has grown. I would note particularly the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s allusion on pp. 90-93 (which was originally a reaction to responses to his original article, which included a deal of Anglican tut-tutting about its “negativity”) to the case of the English Anglican clergyman William Ledwich and his devastating criticism of the Church of England before he left it to become Orthodox in 1983. Ledwich writes (as Ratzinger quoted him):
“That Catholicism is a party within Anglicanism no one can realistically deny … But it remains true that Jesus did not found a Catholic party in a cosmopolitan debating society, but a Catholic Church to which he promised the fullness of truth … A body which reduces its catholicity to a party within a religious parliament can hardly deserve to be called a branch of the Catholic Church, but a national religion, dominated by and structured on the principles of liberal tolerance, in which the authority of revelation is subordinate to democracy and private opinion.”
Ratzinger modestly comments: “I do not presume to give any judgment on this depiction.” However, the “judgment” of the ensuing 25 years had been overwhelmingly to endorse Fr. Ledwich’s critique.
Good afternoon, Fr. Kimel. Hope you and the family are well. I miss Pontifications.
The good news is if Anglicanism gets re-planted in the soil of the Catholic Church we will know that it is a gift from God for the Vatican alone couldn’t have pulled it off.
As a former RC now happily an Episcopalian it is interesting to watch this process, but I’m not sure why the Anglo-Catholics have such hig hopes for special treatment. The Pope holds (and has always held) all the cards in this game. if Anglo-Catholics want to join Rome they can stroll down to the nearest RC cathedral and get it done today. Why, exactly, would the Vatican want or need to “negotiate” any conditions? Why would the Pope be inclined to show a particular respect for the beauty of the Anglican Liturgy and/or British Hymnody?
I can envision this RC response: “You Anglicans hazard your souls in a heretical church because of your fondness for the outward forms of worship in said church. Your conversion is not a boon to be bargained for but an immediate necessity for your own spiritual health.”
I don’t believe any of the above, of course, but Benedict probably does.
This just in (at “Midwest Conservative Journal”):
“Submitted by Whitestone at 7/16/2008 2:33:02 PM
Here’s a really big biggie: “Ex-Anglican communities to become Catholic, Rome confirms Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 07:08 PM GMT [General]
The Catholic Church will expand its provision of ‘Anglican Use†parishes in the United States in order to allow whole communities of traditionalist Anglicans into the Roman fold, a senior Catholic archbishop has announced’.”
#16 – you are completely unfamiliar with the thought of Pope Benedict, if you believe that to be the case.
#18–Benedict choice to reissue “Dominus Iesus” upon becoming Pontiff. Do you want me to summarize it for you to prove I have at least some familiarity with the Pope’s views?
I don’t confuse his cordiality and personal regard for the Archbishop of Canterbury with a change in the long-held doctrine that there is only one true Church–based in Rome–and that the rest of us are mere participants in “ecclesial communities.”
The key phrase is “necessity of conversion,” not “we’ll let you keep some of your protestant trappings and operate as a church within a church if you’ll let us count you as Roman Catholics.”
Having said all that, I don’t have a dog in this fight, just a sporting interest in watching RC rigidity collide with Anglican flexibility.