Pope Benedict XVI and the Anglican Communion
Post by: Dodo the Dude
Back in 2010, an
ex-Anglican priest asked: Three Ways to Be Anglican - Or is it 300?
He continued:
"Three forces
co-exist in the Anglican church - united by nothing more than a shared baptism,
a patriotic allegiance to the national church, and the need to tolerate each
other. Unfortunately the toleration frequently wears thin. The Anglo-Catholics,
the Evangelicals, and the liberals are constantly at war. Their theology, their
liturgy, their politics, and their spirituality are in basic contradiction to
one another.
"Other influences have complicated things further, and the three
main strands of Anglicanism have divided into sub-strands depending on the
influences of various individuals and movements. Just about every permutation
and mixture of politics and religion is found within the Anglican church ...
Since the mid-19th century the Anglican Communion has been slowly
disintegrating. This has happened through breakaway groups who maintain the
Anglican traditions but have set up their own structures and founded their own
churches and communions."
The issues, then and now are well rehearsed: the ordination of women, different prayer books and liturgy, different positions on artificial contraception, abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism and euthanasia. These varied stances reflecting different ways of reading scripture and arriving at different conclusions. The political and theological compromises behind the 5 Solas, the 39 Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer were then and more so now, calling for "good disagreement."
Adding
to the complexity was the papal bull, Apostolicae curae, issued in 1896 by
Pope Leo XIII, in which he authoritatively declared all Anglican
ordinations to be "absolutely null and utterly void". These
ordinations were invalid because of deficiencies in the Anglican
Edwardian Ordinals. The rites expressed an intention to create a priesthood
different from the sacrificing priesthood of the Catholic Church thereby
reduced ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, and invalidating any
sacramental holy orders for bishops and priests. Without valid ordinations
consisting of a sacerodotal priesthood and apostolic succession, Anglicans were
members of an “ecclesial community”, not a Church.
In 1998, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the issued a doctrinal commentary to accompany
Pope John Paul apostolic letter Ad tuendam fidem. In this the pope
reaffirmed Apostolicae curae on the invalidity of Anglican
ordinations. The CDF later confirmed this to be as an example of "those
truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held
definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed".
This, anyone who denies such truths "would be in a position of
rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full
communion with the Catholic Church"
Some Anglicans were
not happy bunnies!
Pope
Benedict understood the complexities of Anglicanism and the chasm growing between
Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals and Liberals. He saw a way out, setting
up a new Anglican structure in communion with the Holy See for those Anglo-Catholics
and Methodists willing to "Swim the Tiber", so to
speak..
Anglicanorum Coetibus. proposed
personal ordinariates for former Anglicans. A structure within the Catholic
Church to enable Anglo-Catholics to join her while preserving elements of their
liturgical and spiritual patrimony. The ordinariates being equivalent to a
diocese, "a particular church in which and from which exists the
one and unique Catholic Church", but in the same
territory as other dioceses "by reason of the rite of the faithful
or some similar reason".
Between 2011 and 2012, three primarily Anglophone ordinariates were
established. One in England, Wales and Scotland, the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in England
and Wales, one in the United States and Canada, with a third
covering Australia and Japan.
Anyone who has attended these services will testify to their beauty,
based as they are on the now restored former Sarum rite that had been stripped by Cranmer of
all suggestion of a sacerodotal priesthood, sacrificial Mass or the
substantial real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and
wine.
Some saw this as a Vatican ploy to poach Anglo-Catholics. Others as an
insult to their Church of England. Instead, Pope Benedict was responding to the
pastoral needs of lay people, clergy, and bishops within the Anglo-Catholic
wing of the Anglican church - those who considered
themselves to be Catholics and wanting to re-establish union with the bishop of Rome. .
Here's an outburst by Cranmer 4 years ago that Happy Jack kept:
"Funny, isn't it, how you find it
so intolerant, unacceptable or 'bigoted' when people question the authority and
infallible precepts of the church that calls itself 'Catholic', yet here you
are declaring that the Church of England has no valid orders and, therefore, no
valid sacraments, which is to say, in your opinion, it is not a church, or any
part of the Church catholic. This is an Anglican blog. You may view it as your
personal mission field - and you are certainly not obliged to believe what we
believe - but, in all fairness, if someone called your church a false church or
the Whore of Babylon, or intimated that your pope was the antichrist and the
Mass an outrageous blasphemy, you'd doubtless find it quite offensive. The
Church of England is Catholic and Reformed: it is a valid church and part of
the Church catholic. Please get over it."
It says more about his own confusion than the person to whom it was directed - 'Happy Jack'.
This, people may
recall, was during a somewhat heated exchange over Adrian Hilton receiving the
Eucharist while visiting Rome without seeking dispensation. Happy Jack was
tempted to ask "Well, just which 'Church of England' would that
be, then? The Evangelical; the Anglo-Catholic; or the Liberal one?" And,
given the 39 Articles position on the Mass and the Eucharist, are you an Anglo-Catholic?" But
having been banned twice already, HJ didn't want to risk a third and, no doubt, a permanent expulsion.
These ordinations were invalid because of deficiencies in the Anglican Edwardian Ordinals.
ReplyDeleteThe Orthodox Church doesn't look on form and intention in the same way when determining the validity of sacraments, but on whether they lie within the Tradition of the Church. For Holy Orders to be valid in the Orthodox Church, there are two requirements: valid succession and the same faith. In the early stages of the ecumenical movement (1920s), the then Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios IV did recognise Anglican Orders as valid, and convert clergy were received as priests through confession and vesting. As Anglicanism became more liberal, however, this recognition ceased.
In 2014, in response to the Church of England's decision to elevate women to the episcopate, the Moscow Patriarchate said in a statement that:
... the centuries-old relationships between our two Churches had shown possibilities for the Orthodox to recognize the existence of apostolic succession in Anglicanism. As far back as the 19th century, the Anglicans, members of the Eastern Church Association, sought “mutual recognition” of orders between the Orthodox and the Anglican Churches and believed that “both Churches preserved the apostolic continuity and true faith in the Saviour and should accept each other in the full communion of prayers and sacraments.”
The decision to ordain women, which the Church of England took in 1992, damaged the relationships between our Churches, and the introduction of female bishops has eliminated even a theoretical possibility for the Orthodox to recognize the existence of apostolic succession in the Anglican hierarchy ... The Russian Orthodox Church regrets to state that the decision allowing the elevation of women to episcopal dignity impedes considerably the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Anglicans, which has developed for many decades, and contributes for further deepening of divisions in the Christian world as a whole.'
According to Wiki:
ReplyDeleteRegarding mutual recognition of ministry, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are reluctant to even consider the question of the validity of holy orders in isolation from the rest of the Christian faith, so in practice they treat Anglican ordinations as invalid. Thus the favourable judgement expressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922 and communicated by him to other Eastern Patriarchs (some of whom, including the Russian Patriarch, signed a contrary declaration in 1948) is in practice without effect. The Eastern Orthodox Church classifies Anglican clergymen who join it as laypeople, and, if they are to function as clergy, administers ordination to them.
It runs deeper than the ordination of woman. The cocktail of beliefs contained in the 39 Articles and the BCP hardly square with a sacerdotal priesthood and the sacrifice nature of Divine liturgy.
Yes, that's the current state of affairs. As I said, valid sacraments require both succession and shared faith; so even if Anglicans proved a line of succession, the fact that they do not hold to the same faith (which includes, but isn't limited to, a sacerdotal priesthood) makes that irrelevant. In effect, the Church realised that the Anglicans it was dealing with in the 1920s didn't represent wider Anglicanism (whatever that may be).
DeleteSo really it amounts to the same thing 0 except Catholics have reasoned it through ☺️
DeleteThe Catechism of the Council of Trent explains: "every Sacrament consists of two things; 'matter,' which is called the element, and 'form,' which is commonly called 'the word.'"
The "matter" of a sacrament is "that part of a sacrament with which or to which something is done in order to confer grace".and "materials used and actions performed". The "form" of a sacrament consists of the words and the intention by which the sacrament is effected.
Pope Pius XII, in Sacramentum Ordinis (On the Sacrament of Order), set forth the requirements for a valid ordination. Theses are very simple:
The laying on of hands;
The words of ordination set forth by the Church;
The proper intention by the bishop; and
A recipient who is not receiving the sacrament against his will.
I suppose I should wait for Bell to show up so he and Jack can discuss the present unity of Rome.
ReplyDeleteThat Anglican ordination is invalid according to the dogmas of Rome is of no concern to anyone outside the Roman Catholic Church. Rome has no authority beyond its own walls.
Neither, of course, is the Protestant dogma that As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith of concern to anyone outside Protestantism's increasingly fragmentary and tumbledown walls.
DeleteUnless, of course, one gives any weight to Jesus' desire that Christians should all be one. But, hey, what did that dude know.
Happy New Year, stranger! Hope you and the Jacob tribe are well.
ReplyDeleteBell has sent HJ an article for publication that will be posted shortly. Here's an idea, send HJ article on the subject: Rome has no authority beyond its own walls, addressing Jesus' words:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Lot of chatter online about Archbishop Georg Gänswein's new book. Apparently Pope Benedict, in private conversations, made a few pretty biting remarks about his successor.
ReplyDeleteSo far the book has been published in Italian only. I had a look around online to see if there was any news of a forthcoming translation, but I didn't find any clues.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pope-meets-with-benedict-s-aide-amid-funeral-book-fallout/ar-AA168ceY?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ebb885b6340f4b3dbaa5bcad45a0f1d0
"Apparently Pope Benedict, in private conversations, made a few pretty biting remarks about his successor." It would seem this man doesn't know the meaning of "private", and there's no way of substantiating his claims.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the two issues of actual substance he cites as having allegedly "perplexed" Pope Emeritus Benedict, i.e., restrictions on the Latin Mass and reception of the Eucharist for divorced and civilly remarried couples, are ones that concern others too.
As the article points out , a secretary to a retired pope publishing a book within a week of his death that "critiques his successor, reveals private correspondence and nurses old grudges in finely documented detail certainly doesn’t follow the reserve typical of Vatican protocol."
It seems to be good old fashioned palace intrigue now that there's a whiff in the air Pope Francis might himself retire.
It would appear that there are no such things as private conversations anymore.
DeleteThere's little or no sense of honour anymore.
DeleteI think we all know Francis won't retire. As for substantiation, why would we assume that Archbishop Gänswein isn't publishing with the late pope's blessing?
DeleteUnsubstantiated private conversations with people who are no longer around is the new 'anonymous sources tell me...'
DeleteWe're essentially calling Archbishop Gänswein a liar here. Why?
DeleteNo, we're questioning the wisdom of listening to unsubstantiated hearsay that appears to have been divulged from a private conversation.
DeleteIf the claims are true, then what of it? That the previous holder of an office is critical of his successor is basically par for the course in any organisation. Benedict resigned the papacy and kept his own counsel, doubtless wanting to avoid stoking the 'not my pope' sentiments of those who claim that Francis's election is illegitimate. To then leak these conversations after Benedict's death has the air of divisive gossip and a worrying lack of discernment.
I would have thought that if these comments were to have been broadcast with Benedicts blessing or request, Benedict would have made this known in some form. The fact that Archbishop Georg Gänswein makes no such claim, lends weight to the accusation that this is, at least, a betrayal of confidences.
DeleteIt may also be downright lies.
@ Bell
DeletePope Benedict was a man of honour; a man of his word. If he expressed reservations privately to his personal secretary, and why shouldn't he, then that's what they were - private and not for public consumption.
He wouldn't make ready to meet his Lord with a lie on his soul and an intention to cause difficulties for Pope Francis.
There are duties and considerations beyond avoiding making trouble for an incumbent pope. Benedict was a subtle theologian. He would know this, and he would know how to balance the duty to make his reservations known against the duty to show no public dissent from the sitting pope. With this in mind, we keep coming back to the same question -- by what authority do we question the integrity of Archbishop Gänswein?
DeleteIt's interesting that there appears to be no need to state by which authority one questions the actions and integrity of the sitting pope, but an Archbishop's words are apparently beyond approach...
DeleteThat aside, what do you imagine that the purpose of publicly releasing these remarks is? Does it build up the body of Christ, or tear it down? Is this a spiritually helpful book, or one which, as the article suggests, 'settles old scores, reveals palace intrigues and casts Francis in a deeply unfavorable [sic] light', designed to appeal to the Catholic 'conservative right, for whom Benedict remained a nostalgic point of reference in retirement'?
If so, are these actions that come from a place of Christian integrity?
Spot on comment. St Thomas More promised public silence about his opposition to King Henry XIII when he withdrew from public office. He kept his word, even though he was still martyred for his faith.
DeleteSorry, that Anonymous comment at 14:43 was me. I don't know how it came up anonymous.
ReplyDeleteBell
I've had this question out in confession with a priest of the FssP. His response was, where the pope is plainly breaching sacred tradition and the magisterium, then call him out. His motivations and inner thoughts, however, are known only to God, therefore refrain from comment on them. Accordingly, I try not to comment on Francis's motivations and am prepared to believe his sincerity, even if I am extremely troubled by the course he's taking. I would expect the same consideration for someone like Archbishop Gänswein from the more liberal end of the Church.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, that sounds like rationalisation; it's ok to say that Francis is acting like a heretic, just as long as one washes one's hands by saying that only God can judge if he really is a heretic deep down. It is a distinction without a difference.
DeleteBy that standard, here is what scared tradition and the Magisterium teach about gossip and the uncharitable use of communication. It seems to me that this gives a perfectly valid authority by which to 'call out' the Archbishop, who would seem to be plainly breaching it.
The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.
Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it. - CCC 2488-2489.
Well, I don't remember calling Francis a heretic, or even claiming he's acting like one. The bar for formal heresy is very high and I don't claim he's cleared it, or even approached it. I believe I said I was extremely troubled by the course he was taking.
DeleteThe section of the CCC you quote is part of the catechism's teasing out of the eight commandment, thou shalt not bear false witness. The first question to be answered is, is Archbishop Gänswein's witness false? Is he lying? Because if you're going to say he is, I'd like to see some evidence. If you're going to say, on the other hand, that he isn't, that he's telling the truth, but he just should not have told it, then read your own cut-and-paste again. If Benedict wanted his thoughts published -- and we don't know that he didn't -- then we DO have the right to know. It is for Gänswein to judge the appropriateness of publishing. Well, clearly, he's judged, and I'll ask again -- by what authority do you question his motives in making that judgement? It may be your opinion that he should not have published, but you weren't the bearer of the communication, he was. I notice you "bolded" part of 2489. For the record, "scandal" is not defined as just gossip. It means to lead people into error. If Gänswein believes that's happening -- and I'm not saying it is, only that he MAY believe it is -- then that's another good reason to publish.
Ultimately, the liberals are claiming a bad faith on Gänswein's behalf that they continually fail to demonstrate, and are unhesitating in invoking the magisterium -- "rigid" and all as it is -- when it suits. I think we can all point out the motes in each others eyes here.
HJ is no "liberal" but believes Gänswein's behaviour to be disgraceful.
DeleteI hope this link works here. It's a screenshot. A favourable review of Abp Gänswein's book by an American living in Italy
ReplyDeleteScreenshot_20230110_120855_Facebook · 720×1373 224 KB · download · original image
The link doesn’t work here, after all. Too bad. Just to give you an idea, this little snippet amounts to about one-third of the whole post.
ReplyDelete*Despite what some will want to push, it’s not an attack on Pope Francis. It does have some stories from their time together, which in recent years was a bit harsh. But most of the stories center around Pope Benedict. Many are charming, like the one about why he was accidentally wearing a black sweater when he came out on the balcony for the first time.*
You evidently got the full treatment from Cranmer, for which I am sorry, having experienced a much milder dose.
ReplyDeleteHi LBS - HJ notes you've reverted to your uncensored self! Good to see you here.
DeleteNews flash: Cardinal Pell died this evening (Tuesday) in a Rome hospital. He was 81. Reuters reports:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/world/australian-cardinal-george-pell-has-died-personal-secretary-says-2023-01-10/
A servant of Christ badly treated by the Australian media and criminal 'justice' system.
ReplyDeleteMay he rest in peace.
A very sad day for Australian Catholics.....Cardinal Pell died this morning. May he rest in peace and may the eternal light shine upon him. He was a brave and faithful Catholic with many enemies, unjustly imprisoned, released by the grace of God through the untiring meticulous efforts of a faithful Jew Justice Weinberg . It is a great loss to us...we are proud of him , we will miss him ....we love him
ReplyDelete