The following article appeared on pages 26 and 28 in last week’s edition of The Tablet www.thetablet.co.uk
Anglican encounters
by Simon Sarmiento
Anglicans will be wondering what Benedict himself made of his two encounters with the Church of England on day two of his papal visit, first when he went to Lambeth Palace, where the Great Hall was filled with diocesan bishops of both churches, and later in Westminster Abbey, where the ecumenical service of Evening Prayer deployed the full resources of the “Anglican Patrimony”, with glorious music and clouds of incense.
At both places, he saw a self-confident Church of England, happy to extend Benedictine hospitality to him, and eager to join with ecumenical partners to proclaim the Gospel. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, later told Vatican Radio he thought it had all been “enormously happy” and “hugely positive”, but would all Anglicans agree? One Church of England bishop that I spoke to the next day had absolutely nothing good to say about the Pope and was not the only one absent from the Abbey service.
Certainly the visit got off to a bad start, for Anglicans in particular, with the revelation that Cardinal Walter Kasper, recently retired head of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, whom they had regarded as their best friend in the Vatican, was not coming. In addition to his critique of Britain (or was it just Heathrow?) as a “Third World Country”, he had told the German magazine Focus that the “Anglican Church” had nothing to offer Roman Catholics in respect of either a married clergy or the ordination of women. Clearly neither of those things represents our “patrimony”. “He is not usually so gauche,” said another C of E bishop.
The Pope’s words, however, were far more nuanced and, to assess them, one needs to lay them alongside the equally measured remarks made by Rowan Williams at Lambeth and the abbey.
During the first formal encounter, at Lambeth, Dr Williams welcomed the Pope, saying that “we do not as Churches seek political power or control”. He noted that no obstacles stand in the way of the bishops from both Churches seeking more ways to “build up one another in holiness”. In fact, joint meetings of Roman Catholic and Anglican bishops are already a regular occurrence in most parts of England today.
By contrast, the Pope declined to speak at all about the specific difficulties of ecumenical dialogue, while emphasising the “remarkable progress” of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (Arcic) during the past 40 years. Instead he focused on the need for Christians to co-operate with other faiths “in promoting peace and harmony in a world … at risk of fragmentation”.
However, he did say, that “the Church is called to be inclusive, yet never at the expense of Christian truth”, which Anglicans will interpret as a negative reference, not only to the ordination of women, and the place of homosexuals in the life of the Church (issues which of course still divide Anglicans) but also to a married clergy and remarriage after divorce.
On the other hand, he referred to John Henry Newman as one “nurtured by his Anglican background” who can serve as a model for modern ecumenical dialogue. As Dr Williams noted in his Vatican Radio interview, Anglicans do not object to his beatification, though some will certainly feel miffed by the decision not to follow Anglican use and adopt 11 August as his feast day, rather than institute 9 October, the day of his conversion to Rome.
What was undoubtedly reassuring to Anglicans was the joint communiqué issued later that “reaffirmed the importance of continuing theological dialogue on the notion of the Church as communion, local and universal, and the implications of this concept for the discernment of ethical teaching”.
At Westminster Abbey, it was the Pope’s turn to speak first. He chose to recall St Bede the Venerable (always a popular choice for Anglicans) who, he said, “understood … the need for creative openness to new developments”, perhaps an unexpected turn of phrase from this Pope. Dr Williams, in turn, recalled Sts Augustine of Canterbury and Gregory the Great, but also noted that “Christians have very diverse views about the nature of the vocation that belongs to the See of Rome” He went on to quote John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint, saying that “we must all reflect together” on how the Petrine ministry may speak to all Christians. A partial agreement here perhaps between these two, but many Anglicans hold dissenting views.
Only at the very end of the visit did the Pope mention Anglicanorum Coetibus, the apostolic constitution to enable Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church through a special structure, and then to his own bishops, not those of the Church of England. In his radio interview, Dr Williams said: “A relatively small number of people in the Church of England have wanted to explore this. I hadn’t ever expected it to be a huge number.”
So, overall, did the Pope surprise Anglicans? Most people I asked said that his remarks were softer in tone than they expected. Does this mean that any fundamental changes are likely? No, but it might mean that dire predictions being made earlier for the future of ecumenical relations were not accurate. A more interesting question might be whether the image of the Church of England among Roman Catholics has been affected by the obvious warmth of feeling that Pope Benedict has displayed on this visit. Yet a concern remains for Anglicans that Rome does not perceive a need for any fundamental rethink of its own position on the divisive issues.
I was pleasantly surprised by the visit but couldn’t help noticing the number of times the Pope said that he sat in the seat of Peter, including at the Abbey. Power mongering? Not very diplomatic!
Abp Williams was invited to the Newman beatification and turned it down. He met the Pope only on his own territory. Was there any Anglican presence at the beatification?
The Bishops of Winchester, Guildford and Chichester were at Cofton Park, as were the Bishops of Birmingham and Coventry. The Bishops of Ebbsfleet, Fulham and Richborough were also there. There may have been others too.
+Andrew
The Bishop of Birmingham was present and also worth noting that +Rowan was ‘robed and in the sanctuary’ alongside various Eastern Orthodox clergy for the Papal Mass in Westminster Cathedtal.
Thanks, Simon, for the thoughtful summary report.
Yes, Tobias, I agree. Good journalism.
Bishop Burnham’s list of Anglican Bishops at the Beatification ceremony seems mostly to consist of the English ‘Global South’ confraternity. Am not too surprised at that – even +Winchester!
I don’t think you should lump married clergy in with women’s ordination and homosexual unions. While married clergy are not ordinarily permitted in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church does not have any particular doctrinal problem with ordaining married priests. In the United States, former Episcopalian clergy have been ordained in the Catholic Church even though they are married. There are also married clergy in the Eastern Rite Churches of Catholicism. I highly doubt that the Vatican is greatly upset about the fact that the Anglican Communion doesn’t impose a celibacy requirement on most of its… Read more »
As a catholic I was disappointed ( dismayed ) that the Pope never referred once to the Holy name of Jesus, when he spoke to the non Christian communities. I also believe his embrace of Rowan is flawed as I believe the theology of the latter is more of a danger to Catholicism than Dawkins and Tatchell.Of course many Anglicans would agree with me here. hope you liberals are honest enough to accept that. I was surprised at how much Latin he used in the liturgy. I would love to know how much he realises what Archbishop Nichols is doing… Read more »
[@Mike M: “barriers [that] *have* to exist”? O_o That may be the Vatican POV . . . but not the one I expect to hear at TA. Unless, like Robert Ian Williams and William Tighe, you are yourself “the Voice of the Vatican”?] “He went on to quote John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint, saying that “we must all reflect together” on how the Petrine ministry may speak to all Christians. A partial agreement here perhaps between these two, but many Anglicans hold dissenting views.” I’m an Anglican who can affirm “Ut Unum Sint” on this point. It would… Read more »
“couldn’t help noticing the number of times the Pope said that he sat in the seat of Peter, including at the Abbey. Power mongering?”
Far better that he calls himself ‘Vicar of Peter’ than ‘Vicar of Christ’. It’s from the latter that the claim to universal ordinary jurisdiction arises.
How B16 can sleep at night knowing that there are Christians he is depriving of a regular Eucharist by insisting on priestly celibacy is one of the mysteries I’d need answering before I could take the ‘pastoral pope’ seriously.
“As a visit I feel that on a one to ten scale, it may in my opinion scrape a five.”
And if the Pope declared, ex cathedra, that a Catholic MUST hold the visit a “ten”, RIW, would you? 😉 (Careful: sounds like you may be going the way of Lefebre!)
JCF, If you see my loyalty to Roman Catholic dogma as making me a “voice of the Vatican,” that may be accurate. Even so, I think you’re misreading my meaning in that sentence. What I meant was that, given the focus under this Papacy of achieving unity with Anglican communities (and also with the Orthodox churches), I think it should be assumed that these efforts are made in good faith, and that the Vatican is not erecting artificial barriers. Where there are differences in what either side considers a core matter of faith, that’s a difference that can’t simply be… Read more »
RIW — “I was surprised at how much Latin he used in the liturgy.”
Two short anthems in Latin? – seems perfectly ordinary Church of England to me.
Whether or not Peter was ever in Rome — evidence is disputed, if not dubious — there was certainly a church there before any visit by him or Paul, so he wasn’t the founder. Further, there were no bishops in his time, and authority seems to have come from below by election, not above by appointment. Finally, if Peter died in Rome, that would seem to give the church there no more claim to his mantle than the bishop of Memphis would have to the mantle of Martin Luther King, Jr., martyred in his city. Rome padded its part shamelessly… Read more »
“Two short anthems in Latin? – seems perfectly ordinary Church of England to me.” – John Roch It’s not just a CofE practice. Anyone going to St. Thomas Church (Episcopal) in New York City, where I was received from the Roman Catholic Church in 1977, could hear Latin anthems with some regularity. Now, in a modest-sized parish thirty miles to the east, Christ Church-Oyster Bay, I can still hear Latin anthems though with somewhat less regularity. Naturally, the English translation of the words is provided in the service leaflet. But ours is not a true “High Church” Anglo Catholic parish,… Read more »
“I also believe his embrace of Rowan is flawed as I believe the theology of the latter is more of a danger to Catholicism than Dawkins and Tatchell.Of course many Anglicans would agree with me here. hope you liberals are honest enough to accept that.” This sounds like embarrassing RC sectarianism and triumphalism to me. RW is a monument of theological orthodoxy in the best and most grounded sense, and few RC bishops come within hailing distance of his theological wisdom. What the critics go on and on and on about is his perceived liberalism, i. e. humanity, where gayness… Read more »
“Good faith efforts at unity”, Mike M? Well, I guess it depends on how far you’re prepared to torture those terms. B16’s efforts, w/ “Anglicanorum Coetibus” have been nothing like that, IMHO. The proposal is to pick apart the Ecclesia Anglicana, and then *subordinate* (willing—at first!) fragments to the Vatican (I’m sorry: “Unity” and “Subordination” are *oxymorons*) I agree that there are mutually-exclusive ideological concepts. I imagine that you would hold all the (millions of) Roman Catholics who do NOT believe “women’s ordination is an impossibility… (et al)” to be “not REAL Roman Catholics”, in the same way that I… Read more »
Well there was rather more latin than two anthems! At the major Papal Masses the Canon of the Mass was in latin. This was different ,I am sure, from the last Papal visit, and I notice Benedict always wears a dalmatic under his chasuble which I am not sure was JP11’s usual practice. In Benedict’s ideal Church the Ministry of the Word would be in the vernacular and the Ministry of the Sacrament always in latin I suspect (Interestingly W H Auden who loathed liturgical reform suggested the same thing for Anglicans too!!) The confidence with which the RC Church… Read more »
During the season that our Schola Cantorum sings at Mass, usually the Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei are in Latin; there may be additional anthems in Latin.
‘ *a* tradition that 1) “Peter is the Prince of the Apostles” (w/ special authority) 2) Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and 3) all succeeding Bishops of Rome inherit a particular “Petrine ministry”.’
Not really. These are in fact pious legend.
Murdoch makes the point well.
My bad – mixing up the threads
🙁
The Eastern orthodox Church, who split from us in the eleventh century, acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St peter. They just dispute his jurisdiction and the meaning of his role.
Yet their liturgy and the record of early Christianity speaks forcibly of the Petrine claims..to the extent that at the Council of Chalcedon, the bishops chanted Peter has spoken through Leo.
“The Eastern orthodox Church, who split from us in the eleventh century, acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St peter. They just dispute his jurisdiction and the meaning of his role.” Well, don’t get too excited, Robert. The Orthodox Churches are lousy with apostolic founders. From Wikipedia: “The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew. The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark The Russian Orthodox Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew The Armenian Apostolic Church claims unbroken succession to the… Read more »
JCF, Your solution appears to be that Catholics should “stop erecting barriers” by giving up the central elements of their Faith. Catholics didn’t just decide to accept the primacy of the See of Rome because we wanted to wall off Anglicans and the Orthodox. The belief in the primacy of the Pope stretches back at least to the close of the second century. At the time, it existed to preserve unity. The increasing fragmentation of the Anglican Communion lends some additional credence to its value. Feigning unity among Catholics, Methodists, Calvinists and Lutherans would just be a sham. What does… Read more »
“Where groups share identical dogma (as is the case with the groups of Anglicans who petitioned the Holy See for union), then full union should be recognized.”
– Mike M –
Then, in fact, there could yet be a married Pope?