www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Pope Kissed Canterbury Ring

I thought this story was worthy of discussion. What does the forum think of the Pope kissing a mans ring who does not hold a valid ordination?

http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=42431

Zenit News:

I believe a bishop's ring is a symbol of his authority. For Pope John Paul II to kiss the ring of the Anglican Archlayman of Canterbury isn't he recognizing some authority?

I believe the Church has ruled that Anglican no longer have valid orders unless a male was consecrated by a member of the Old Roman Catholic Church.

Can someone please clarify that for me?

Ah now Johan please let's have a little courtesy - Dr Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is in Orders and is not a layman.

Anhelyna

Since the Catholic Church has always been extremely clear in delineating the areas in which the Anglican Church has departed from Orthodox Teaching the most logical solution is that the Holy Father was recognizing and respecting the presence of Christ in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Have you ever heard the story of St. Seraphim of Sarov? He bowed and embraced every individual as if that individual was Christ Himself. Indeed, each human being is an icon of Christ and worthy of respect.

Our Lady's...,

I believe it was Pope Leo XIII letter, �Apostolicae Curae� which states Anglican orders "Null and Void."

Here is a link to that letter via EWTN:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13APCUR.HTM

If that were the case then would it be proper to call Dr. Rowen Williams Bishop of Canterbury?

When Michelle Arnold the expert on EWTN addresses Dr. Rowen Williams as well Dr. Rowen Williams. I have not seen him addressed as Bishop Williams.

For example: Link to article on EWTN. [ewtn.com]
So if we call him Bishop are we being disrespectful to the Church?


Admin,

I have heard of St. Seraphim of Sarov. St. Seraphim of Sarov kissed every individual because every individual is a living Icon. I do not think St. Seraphim of Sarov ever kissed a non-Orthodox Bishops ring though?

I think it would be a wonderful gesture for the Pope to kiss Dr. Rowen Williams out of respect but not his ring. Where am I going wrong here?

=====================================
Edited by Admin to fix link.

Yes. Respect for a Church that has rejected the fullness of the Faith should never be seen as improper. It is certainly correct to refer to Dr. Williams as the Archbishop of Canterbury. That is his official title, both in the Church of England�s religious tenants and in British law.

Anglican clerics are not always referred to with the same terminology used in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The use of the term �Dr.� is appropriate and not disrespectful. It is certainly not wrong. Unless Arnold has specifically stated that the use of the term �Dr.� was an intended slight I think it improper to assume that she has done so.

No.

If he didn�t, does it really matter? It is still a wonderful gesture of charity. Do you really think that the Holy Father is too stupid to realize that others will assign meanings to even his simplest gestures and carefully choose his actions accordingly?

And PLEASE start using the URL feature to keep the pages from appearing so wide that readers need to scroll horizontally to read your posts.

Admin,

I will start to use those URL UBB codes.

Thanks!

Not only the Holy Father, but Cardinal Ratzinger gave his prayers and blessing (via media) to those conservative Episcopalian priests and bishops meeting in Dallas to discuss abandoning the US Episcopal church on Wednesday afternoon.

an Anglican in Christ,
Marshall

Johan,

I may be Latin and I may well use - through ignorance -an incorrect term for a Member of the Orthodox Hierarchy - I would not be intending disrespect and I am certain that I would be gently corrected - but at the same time it would be understood that I meant no disrespect.

However my post to you was because you had stated quite clearly

That was not a slip of the fingers on the keyboard - it was, I am certain, deliberate.

If you do not wish to use a title - because you do not hold with it - then you should not have altered it in this way. Personally I find the term unwarranted and offensive.

You may be more comfortable using the term Dr Rowan Williams in the future .

With apologies to the members of this Forum [ who I am certain have realised how I abhor deliberate discourtesy ]- rant over

Anhelyna - the ex Methodist, ex Anglican

How to address and refer to a cleric of another ecclesial body can indeed be a puzzle. In the case of Dr. Rowan Williams, he holds a perfectly good, earned doctorate in theology, which he has taught at Oxford. When he is referred to as Archbishop of Canterbury, there is no ambiguity, because only the Anglican incumbent claims that title so it is clear that the Anglican incumbent is meant - including whatever opinion the speaker or writer has of Anglican Orders.
For social purposes, it is always well to be courteous. If one were introduced to the Dalai Lama, one would bow politely and say "Your Holiness" without implying that one regarded the Dalai Lama as Pope or Patriarch. One expects that the recipients of such courtesy will understand that the courtesy does not imply that one is necessarily an adherent of the one so addressed.

Johan,

Incognitus makes a good point about courtesy.

Personally, however, I wouldn't refer to Rowan Williams (Rowan, not "Rowen" ) as Archbishop, because in the eyes of the Catholic Church this man has no Orders and is a simple lay Christian. If people take this as impolite, so be it. I have more important things to worry about, like being faithful to what I believe and what I think my faith demands of me as an adherent.

I can certainly understand those who, while recognizing the nonexistence of Rowan Williams' "Orders," so wish to address him as Archbishop.

Logos Teen

P.S. - This goes for Episcopal "priests" as well. I can certainly understand if one wishes to call them "Father," but I could never in good conscience address one as such. I have done it in the past with Mr. Kimel who used to frequent the Forum, and look back only with regret.

Well, no disrespect for the Holy Father but what would one think of him kissing the "koran", or those "blasphemous" rites that took place in the Assisi Peace Congress.
Sometimes I have my doubts.
Stephanos I

The issue of the validity of the orders in the Anglican Church is not directly relevant. The matter is one of courtesy and respect. Did not Paul teach us that the greatest of the virtues is charity? I think the Holy Father set a wonderful example. It is worthy of praise, not condemnation.

Stephanos,

Well yeah, I can see your point about Assisi, but there's no proof that book was the Qu'ran; the Pope is kissing the book in question in the company of Patriarch Raphael of the Chaldean Catholic Church, and it looks to be a lexicon of sorts.

Admin,

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It was certainly not my intention to "condemn" the acts of the Holy Father. It is not my place to do so, and neither do I feel it necessary in this situation. You are absolutely correct in that Saint Paul edifies believers to be charitable in all things. However, there's a difference between real and feigned charity. I do not consider it charitable to deliberately misconstrue one's religious viewpoint so as not to risk offending the other party involved. I find it a little deceitful and "wimpy," for lack of a better word.

No, I'm not saying the Pope is deceitful or wimpy. In all probability he doesn't feel the same way about the situation, so it's a whole new ball game. But for me to address Rowan Williams as Archbishop would be both deceitful and wimpy, IMHO.

I know I haven't made myself crystal clear, but hopefully this will suffice.

Logos Teen

Shlomo Admin,
Also to go on your point of:

I would like to point out that the Church teaches that Islam does have PART of the revealed Truth of God (The Church of course has the entire revealed Truth).

841. "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'[LG 16; cf. NA 3.]"

Therefore, IF the Pope did kiss the Q'aran then it is going along with our Church's respect for Muslims and Islam as part of the Faith of Abraham.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Did we all miss this line?

Kissing the ring given by a Pope could simply be a sign of respect for a symbol of Catholic-Anglican relations. No validation of orders, no agreement with Anglican practice, just a little respect for the past. Perhaps we read too much into these things.

And why so much objection to calling Anglicans by the titles they use? They don't use them out of disrespect for the Catholic Church. They aren't doing it to make a mockery of the Catholic hierarchy (even though some may feel they do). I am sure you would all be appalled if some staunchly traditionalist Orthodox who does not recognize Catholic orders went up to the Pope and said "Good morning, Mr. Karol Wojtyla", or did the same to any other Catholic bishop or clergyman. Just because you call someone "bishop" does not mean you accept their orders or lack thereof. It is just common courtesy!

Dave