Paul Vallely: Why the Pope is not rejoicing at the split
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Print
Email
The Pope might be expected, privately, to be rejoicing at the splits in Anglicanism. He might be expected to issue an open invitation for disgruntled Anglicans to join the Church of Rome. Instead, he is trying to bolster the beleaguered Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why is he doing this? Rome is playing a very long game here which began in 1966 when Pope Paul VI took off his ring and gave it to Dr Williams' predecessor Michael Ramsey. It was a gesture of huge symbolic importance.
In the past four decades, the relationship between Rome and Canterbury has markedly deepened. Years of talks, despite a setback on women priests, have produced joint statements on the eucharist and authority which laid the basis for healing the rift of the Reformation.
The Pope now fears this is at risk. He worries that the Church of England, which for centuries has prided itself on being both catholic and reformed, could mutate into hardline Protestantism.
He is at one with Dr Williams on this. The two leaders have a strong personal empathy and share a deep and sophisticated theology. Both emphasise the importance of reason as well as faith.
The Pope feels more in common with him than he does with theologically primitive and doctrinally ideological evangelicals who share his objections to homosexuality or women bishops. Both men see preserving unity as key and the Catholic bishops in England have warned Rome about the deeply factional nature of Anglican politics. A number of the Anglicans who moved to Rome when women were ordained brought with them a rancorous divisive mentality.
Which is why those Anglican bishops who recently approached the Vatican to ask if traditionalist C of E parishes could migrate en masse to Rome, under an Anglican liturgical rite, were sent off with a flea in their ear.
Comments
14 Comments
It is a pity to let the facts stand in the way of a good story, as they say, but the only 'recent' approach I know of was when the Bishop of Richborough and I went to Rome. I was on study leave with my family celebrating my 60th birthday and was delighted when we were given opportunity to meet two cardinals and their senior staff.
We did not go 'to ask if traditionalist C of E parishes could migrate en masse to Rome, under an Anglican liturgical rite', were received courteously and hospitably and were certainly not 'sent off with a flea in [the] ear'.
My pastoral concern is not for special arrangements for me, for priests or parishes, let alone particular rites, but that the clergy and laity of the Church of England who have been seeking to live the Catholic life may continue to find ways of doing so.
Posted by Bishop of Ebbsfleet | 18.07.08, 18:06 GMT
The Pontiff is right to keep well away from the emotionally charged bigots who cannot cope with women priests, for reasons which leave Joe Public baffled and are hardly likely to increase the number of Anglican 'supporters'. Would you want them as neighbours?
Posted by JR | 16.07.08, 22:10 GMT
"On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PLEASE MEN BUT GOD, who tests our hearts. 5 You know WE NEVER USED FLATTERY, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed - God is our witness. 6 WE WERE NOT LOOKING FOR PRAISE FROM MEN, not from you or anyone else." - St. Paul, in 1 Thessalonians, 2:4
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it."
- St. Paul the Apostle in 1 Galatians, chapter 1.
"As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted (from us, the Apostles), let him be eternally condemned!" - Galatians 1:9
You FEMINISTS, who keep perpetuating LIES - TAKE HEED.
Posted by Ivan | 16.07.08, 21:43 GMT
Ivan,
The ministry of Christ was mostly FUNDED by women, there are numerous examples in acts and futher in the New Testement of Women being church leaders, bishops and missionaries for the Christian movement.
My faith is the basis for my salvation, regardless of what you said, and I would happily discuss theologically the issues here with you, but here is not the place, and I fear it will be of no use or consequence if you conistently parrot only half-relevant scripture quotes. Use your own brain and realise, as many have said that God is LOVE, INCLUSIVE, and we should be like him. No wonder the church is in decline if society thinks Christians are all like you. If a split in the church allows love to be expressed in the community, then at least that'll help.
For what it's worth, I thank the Pope for his stance, and I weep for the state of the church that it continues to broadcast such horrendous images of itself and forgets the fundamental good news of salvation.
Posted by Johan | 16.07.08, 19:21 GMT
"And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him."
THOSE are the TWELVE APOSTLES. And ONLY TWELVE.
Mary, Martha and others were not Christ's APOSTLES. They were merely FOLLOWERS of Christ.
And in case you choose to believe that the Holy Scripture has been "altered" by men "to denigrate female disciples":
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." - Galatians 1:8
Posted by Ivan | 16.07.08, 17:42 GMT
"I abhor the fact that the two of us share the branding of being a "Christian"" - I share nothing with You.
You're a brainwashed leftist, who LIKES TO THINK of himself as a "christian".
In fact, people like You, my dear friend, only serve the purpose of HELPING THE DEVIL in his attempts to discredit TRUE christians, to brand them "fanatics", "fundamentalists" and such.
You only have a name, that You're alive, but infact - You're dead. (Rev. 3:1)
And You'll find that out for Yourself, in a few decades - unless You repent.
"God fairly clearly did have female disciples - Martha and Mary and Mary Magdalene." - A LIE.
God the Son asked God the Father only for the TWELVE MEN to sit next to him. Therefore, God the Son recognized ONLY THE TWELVE MEN as His APOSTLES.
Besides:
"1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness." - Matthew 10:1-2
PLEASE, stop perpetuating FEMINIST LIES and HALF-TRUTHS.
Posted by Ivan | 16.07.08, 17:32 GMT
Im sorry. I did not mean any of the things i wrote. I simply get frustrated by my own homosexuality and feel the need to take this out on others.
Posted by Ivan | 16.07.08, 17:14 GMT
"Theologically primitive", now there's a useful phrase for people who disagree with your interpretation of doctrine!
It does smart, doesn't it? But, how should uncritical, ahistorical
and literalist approaches to theology be called? They are at
best reductionistic if not simplistic. It's not a stretch from that
realization to a characterization of primitive, albeit a rather
ungenerous one.
It's just so loving as well - should make those who disagree come running, shouldn't it?
Sadly, the behavior of theological conservatives has fairly
consistently indicated that there will be no room for
compromise, no good faith dialogue, no willingness to live and
let live with theological differences in the Anglican tradition.
There are no victims here. Just people who increasingly find
themselves unable to agree. The sad thing is that such
disagreements would result in the unwillingness to engage the
sacraments together.
Posted by Harry Coverston | 16.07.08, 17:11 GMT
Re Ivan's contribution. And others. "God is love."
God fairly clearly did have female disciples - Martha and Mary and Mary Magdalene.
The Gospels were written down by men - it is not entirely surprising that only men are called "disciples". But the Gospels differ as to the identities of the twelve men.
Homosexuality is not mentioned by Jesus - it is condemned, I believe, by OT law.
Just as the NT is held to be an advance on the OT, so 21st century thinking should reflect social and physical science research, and in this context we should be tolerant of homosexuality and not fear it. God is love, first of all.
Posted by David | 16.07.08, 15:26 GMT
Grace would be right, but for one problem: if you ask God, you don't get any answers.
Jesus became an atheist on the cross -- he cried out "Eloi, Eloi, lami sabachthani?", "Lord, Lord, why have you left me?", which was the point at which this gentle, charismatic man realised that the god he worshipped didn't actually exist and wasn't going to save him. Sadly, it was too late for him to pass on the news, because he was soon dead; the resurrection is clearly a later fairy tale.
But Jesus's key message was "love your neighbour", or even more simply "love all humanity". Christians should follow that message, and not over-emphasise the fairy tales (or "theology" if you want to give it a long name). Then this mess would sort itself out.
Posted by Sam Centipedro | 16.07.08, 14:58 GMT
14 Comments