|
0 members (),
315
guests, and
63
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,393
Posts416,749
Members5,993
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 576
OrthoDixieBoy Member
|
OP
OrthoDixieBoy Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 576 |
This article was forwarded to me. I do no know the source. Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans
by Damian Thompson
16 November 2007
Two and a half years after the name "Josephum" came
booming down from the balcony of St Peter's, making
liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is
revealing his program of reform. And it is
breathtakingly ambitious.
The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of
the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy
innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the
sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the
Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great
Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast
numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered
the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en
masse.
The liberal cardinals don't like the sound of it at
all.
Ever since the shock of Benedict's election, they have
been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he
has, the resistance has begun in earnest - and the
Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac
Murphy-O'Connor, is in the thick of it.
"Pope Benedict is isolated," I was told when I visited
Rome last week. "So many people, even in the Vatican,
oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely." Yet he
is plowing ahead. He reminds me of another
conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who
waited a couple of years before taking on the Cabinet
"wets" sabotaging her reforms.
Benedict's pontificate moved into a new phase on July
7, with the publication of his apostolic letter
Summorum Pontificum.
With a stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the
traditional Latin Mass - in effect banned for 40 years
- to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly
afterwards, he replaced Archbishop Piero Marini, the
papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of John
Paul II's Masses into politically correct carnivals.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor was most displeased. Last
week, he hit back with a "commentary" on Summorum
Pontificum.
According to Murphy-O'Connor, the ruling leaves the
power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes
the bishops' power to block the ancient liturgy. In
other words, the cardinal - who tried to stop Benedict
issuing the ruling - is misrepresenting its contents.
Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain,
Europe and America have tried the same trick.
Murphy-O'Connor's "commentary" was modeled on equally
dire "guidelines" written by Bishop Arthur Roche of
Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the
faithful from exercising their new rights.
A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news
travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and
these tactics have been brought to the attention of
papal advisers.
This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior
Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that
"bishops and even cardinals" who misrepresented
Summorum Pontificum were "in rebellion against the
Pope".
Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the
Congregation for Divine Worship, in charge of
regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if
Benedict is moving into a higher gear, then he needs
street fighters in high office.
He may also have to reform an entire department, the
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity,
which spends most of its time promoting the sort of
ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.
This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of
the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of
400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in
America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for
"full, corporate, sacramental union".
Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican.
Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John
Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He
is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements
for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck
of the Anglican Communion.
This would mean that they could worship together, free
from bullying by local bishops who dislike the
newcomers' conservatism and would rather "dialogue"
with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.
The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement
with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former
Anglicans - all these ambitions reflect Benedict's
conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover
the liturgical treasure of Christian history to
perform its most important task: worshipping God.
This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young
Catholics, but not by the church politicians who have
dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.
By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives -
or even to display any interest in them, beyond the
narrow question of how their power is affected - the
bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict's
low opinion of them.
Now he should replace them. If the Catholic
reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well be
here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510 |
This article was forwarded to me. I do no know the source. Well .. it does seem very bias. My take on things is that Pope John Paul was very sincere. Union with all Christians was in his heart. John Paul laid the ground work simply by the type of man (and mystic) he was. Benedict is a politician. He does not have the spiritual depth that John Paul had ... but he may just have the political savvy and talent to move union forward. I think he has the ability to make the bargains necessary. From what I read of Benedict (Ratzinger) he is not as consistent in his writings and comments as John Paul was. Ratziner seems to know what to say and when to say it. And so if you read his eariler stuff and later stuff... his comments are tailored to the situation and may even be contradictory. He is a man who knows his audiance and knows what to say. And so while Ratzinger is not the saint that John Paul was .. Ratzinger just may be the shrewd negotiator needed in the political area to bring about success. John Paul opened the door .. Ratzinger may just be the right man to drive the obstacle course to success. I think it is pretty clear that he wants to be known as the Pope who 'did it'. Let us keep our eye on him to see if he can do it. -ray
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Ray,
I don't think Pope Benedict XVI will drive the obstacle course anywhere. I do think that Pope Benedict XVI will bring clarity to program of reunion and as one who is a more careful and articulate theologian he will help everyone put things into a more realistic framework. Blessed Pope John Paul II (I know he is not beatified yet, but in my mind a great and holy man) was a great, charismatic leader and made the first big moves necessary for a reproachment between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. But Pope John Paul II could be imprecise in some of his language to the point of being unintentionally equivocal I think (hence the need for the clarification of the term "Sister Churches.") It is like someone being so enthusiastic that he puts the cart before the horse. I think that Pope Benedict will make sure that there are no misunderstandings in the ecumenical talks.
But a very good thing that Pope Benedict is doing, that Pope John Paul II failed to do (and he admitted this himself) is restore discipline to the Latin Church, especially concerning the Liturgy. If the Latin Church cleans up her Liturgy and enacts more strict discipline among her priests then much will be accomplished for the cause of reunion.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Dear Friends, Actually, Pope Benedict's conservatism is his great saving grace. The liberals have been running the Church since the sixties and people are beginning to smarten up. The liturgical reforms of the sixties have run into the sand when Catholic liberals were trying to make the Church's liturgy and theology more "of this world." It would not be surprising that the Pope would feel isolated in the Vatican as a result of his conservative agenda. The Vatican itself is isolated from the rest of the Catholic world and what Catholics really feel a need for: the deepened sense of the sacred, dignified liturgies, the Divine Office and liturgical prayer life in which the laity may participate, traditional devotions that underscore the "mysterium tremendum" of the Divine Incarnation and High Christology. The more traditional Benedict XVI gets the Church to be, the more plaudits he receives from the Orthodox and others. Not too long ago, I understand that a "High Church" Finnish Lutheran bishop (although I think they are all that way in Finland and Sweden), told the Pope about his love of Eucharistic Adoration etc. (!) It is time to show the door to the Catholic liberals as they have had more than enough time to show the Church the "fruits" of their agenda. Those "fruits" are more akin to the barren fig tree in the Gospels . . . Long live His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI!! (Plus he sent me a personally signed picture and said he liked my akathist to Pope John Paul II  )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 403
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 403 |
I would very much like to commend you for your work on the Akathist in honor of the late Pope John Paul II. It is a beautiful akathist and a fitting tribute to a wonderful Holy Father.
Perhaps you might know the answer to this. Is there an Akathist in honor of Blessed Josaphata Hordashevska? I would like to find one if there is one. Your assistance in this matter is very much appreciated and again thank you for the work that you did on the Akathist in honor of John Paul II.
Slava Isusu Khrystu!
John Doucette
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Dear John,
You are too kind.
I've not come across an akathist to Bl. Josafata but I will look around for you.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
Getting back to Thompson's article, He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors. Here he seems to be eqating ecumenism with an attitude that seeks only to try and please everybody and ends up pleasing nobody. I know this seems to work for politicians, but I hope that's not what the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is all about. (However, if it simply means the Pope might replace the council members with ones who think more like the members of this forum--who believe that unity at the expense of truth is no unity at all--that's got to be a good thing!  ) This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers' conservatism and would rather "dialogue" with Anglicans than receive them into the Church. Here again, he seems to be slamming the concept of dialogue, even though it's clear from the context that what's really going on is that some (many?) RC bishops would rather be seeking union with the same "liberal" element in the Anglican Church that this group wants to get away from--and certainly don't like the idea of being identified with these "dissident" Anglicans! Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491 |
The more traditional Benedict XVI gets the Church to be, the more plaudits he receives from the Orthodox I would be careful of asserting this too strongly. Certainly, the Orthodox appreciate his emphasis on tradition in theological matters and also, to a lesser degree, liturgically (*see my note below). But his traditional assertion of papal authority has not garnered much praise from the Orthodox. This is especially true of the Pope's decision to abandon the title of "patriarch." The question is always, "Which tradition ...?" ------- As Fr Schemmann points out in his commentary on the reforms of Vatican II, many of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II were actually quite favorably received by the Orthodox. From a theological perspective, the juridical and legal emphases of the Latin Mass are foreign to an Eastern theological perspective. The western understanding of original guilt undergirds the entire structure of the Mass. This is true also of the Latin Mass's understanding of the Cross and the Atonement -- it does not reflect the "Christus Victor" emphasis of the Eastern understanding of the Cross. Its emphasis on the suffering Christ and the acutely penitential thrust seems very foreign to those who are trained spiritually in the resurrectionally oreinted celebratory Eucharistic liturgies of the East. Therefore, although I understand that from an "ethos" perspective the Latin Mass seems to be more "eastern", I would argue that promoting it actually pushes union between East and West further away.
Last edited by PrJ; 11/20/07 07:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Bless, Father! Actually, right now I'm in no position to assert anything strongly at all! There can be no doubt that Benedict's emphases are not being accepted wholesale by Orthodoxy. But I've seen an Orthodox admiration expressed for him because of his traditional stance. (As for the Latin approach to satisfaction etc. - Fr. John Meyendorff in his "Byzantine Theology" as you know affirmed that the East would really have no problem with it and the theology that underpins it, even though it is not the theology of the East). When Benedict inadvertently upset a number of the Islamic world at Regensburg, well, the Russian Orthodox press couldn't stop writing, again admiringly, about him, it discussed his life, his achievements etc. What Benedict said about Catholicism being the fullness of the faith and of the Church - he was calling a spade a spade from the Catholic POV and while the Orthodox didn't like it, they realized that they are dealing with one tough hombre here. And this is just what so many Catholics probably need by way of reality check. I remember reading in the Basilian "The Light" about someone who wrote to say that "if Vatican II says so many positive things about other faiths, then why should we hang on to the Catholic faith? You can get divorced and remarried in other denominations etc." I do foresee the day when Eastern Orthodoxy will recognize the RC Church as one big "Western Orthodox Vicariate." At least some Orthodox will always see Rome that way . . . eventually . . . Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Dear Father Deacon, Excellent point, in particular, about RC's wanting union with the same liberal element among the Anglicans! High Church Anglican Catholics often commemorate the Pope already and are, in every which way, as traditionally RC as all get out. One problem could be that these Anglicans are so conservative that they make liberal Catholics nervous, as you say. It reminds me of when King Charles I of England visited Nicholas Ferrar and his family and saw how they prayed the Psalter twice in each day. He went home to tell his Catholic wife, Queen Henrietta, that at Little Gidding there is a Protestant family "that puts to shame the strictest of your Roman religious orders." High Church Protestants, when they come into union with Rome, have much to teach us "lax cradles" no? Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491 |
As for the Latin approach to satisfaction etc. - Fr. John Meyendorff in his "Byzantine Theology" as you know affirmed that the East would really have no problem with it and the theology that underpins it, even though it is not the theology of the East. Fr Meyendorff is in the definite minority in terms of this opinion. But my point is that the more Benedict XVI pushes the more "traditional" Latin doctrines and practices the more uneasy many in the East become.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491 |
High Church Anglican Catholics often commemorate the Pope already and are, in every which way, as traditionally RC as all get out. Having been a High Church Anglican for several years, I would not make this affirmation so strongly :-) It all depends on what you mean by "traditionally RC". There is a different ethos to a High Church Anglican spirituality than there is to a traditionally RC spirituality. Please understand that different is not wrong -- it is just different -- but the difference does exist. If it did not exist, then the High Church Anglicans would long ago have ceased to exist as a separate ecclesiastical entity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 Likes: 2 |
I'm curious as to just how Pope Benedict pushing the more "traditional" Latin doctrines makes many in the East uneasy ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
I have long been a devout Anglican watcher. It must be admitted that the traditional Anglo-Catholic position is in a dire position these days.
For most outside the Anglican world it is important to recognize that the Anglo-Catholic does not necessarily mean conservative. Anglo-Catholics in the AC were divided among conservatives and liberals. And the low church or evangelical wing was conservative.
Today, those old distinctions do not mean as much as they used to. Virtually all Anglicans wear vestments and have the Eucharist every Sunday, which was hardly the case before Vatican II, when the Evangelicals often only had communion 2 to 12 times a year. So, in that sense pretty much all Anglicans have been "catholicised."
Of the AngloCatholics of a decidedly high church orientation, however, it must be understood that this did not have as much to do with theology necessarily as with liturgy. So there were high church Anglo-Catholics who were conservative theologically and those who were liberal. Since 1976 and the ordination of women, the conservative Anglo Catholics have been losing ground considerably almost to the vanishing point. Many became Catholic. Some joined splinter churches.
Today the few conservative Anglo-Catholics are clustered in a few dioceses in Penn, Illinois, Texas and California. Other than these places the conservative Anglo-Catholics have almost no influence in TEC.
So the present configuration of TEC is a large, bland moderate majority that wants to avoid politics, a liberal mostly liberal "catholic" wing and a conservative evangelical wing.
The two bishop who left TEC for the Catholic Church this year were both of the high Anglo Catholic persuasion. Neither saw a future for themselves in either liberal TEC or the evangelical dominated new break away movement.
The Anglican group that may collectively have union with Rome is a group that separated in 1976 with the WO controversy. The "Traditional Anglican Communion" has nothing to do with the Anglican Communion of Canterbury.
It is a real mess.
Last edited by Fr J Steele CSC; 11/20/07 11:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
