Posted on 05/25/2005 7:48:20 PM PDT by jec1ny
Thanks for posting this insightful article. Clearly Benedict XVI is several steps ahead of the prevailing wisdom.
What does that mean? What are the lines of authority in such an arrangement? Just curious.
The Orthodox seem to see an opening with BXVI as well.
Thanks. That submission to the ultimate authority of the Pope would be a revolutionary change, and break with history. I don't see it, but well, my "expertise" on these matters is next to nil, as so many posters have so helpfully reminded me.
From then on, it'll be anybody's guess as to how the rest of the Anglicans tilt.
That's the way I see it, anyway.
Yes! A new word every day.
"sedevacantists
Yes! A new word every day."
The word is a term for schismatic and heretical traditionalists who believe that the pope is not the pope. Although few in numbers, there are a lot of different branches of these individuals. Most believe the throne of Peter has been vacant since the reign of either Pope Pius XII or John XXIII. Some hold that John ceased to be pope when he embraced what they claim was modernist heresy. Others claim that John was never legally elected because he was (so they claim) a secret Free Mason and therefore excommunicated.
Of course this is utter nonsense. The one thing which binds all these traditionalist quasi-Catholics is their visceral hatred of all things connected to Vatican II, most particularly the reformed (Novus Ordo) liturgy. In fairness I am not a great fan of the reformed liturgy myself. I do not doubt its legitimacy or its legality. But I do believe as a matter of private opinion, that it is manifestly inferior to that which it was intended to replace. Many of the sedevacantists have validly ordained priests. A few of the groups may even have validly though illicitly consecrated bishops (usually obtained through Old Catholic lines). Many however do not have valid orders. In any case, sedevacantists are formally schismatic and heretical by virtue of their denial of the lawful authority and election of the supreme pontiff and also their denial of the dogmatic definitions of the Second Vatican Council. They are ipso facto excommunicated.
As a side note the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) founded by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is not sedevacantist. They acknowledge the lawful election and authority of the post conciliar popes. Their position on the validity of Vatican II is not altogether clear. However their open and very grave disobedience coupled with their unauthorized episcopal consecrations renders them schismatic although they deny this. Unlike most of the fringe traditionalist groups there is some hope that the SSPX might be reconciled with the Holy See. Pope Benedict XVI has been quite blunt in his own criticisms of the reformed liturgy and his high opinion of the pre-Vatican II (Tridentine Rite) liturgy. It is entirely possible that a much broader permission for the use of the old mass may be forthcoming.
bookmark
Can't see this happening. The Anglicans are a broad church and they take pride in remaining so. There is an Anglo-Catholic section but it has not done much in its long history. The ordination of women priests did not create a big stir and they soon will become bishops. Over time opposition fades and everyone is happy again. Very few people resist change.
One of the big stumbling blocks to Anglo-Catholic reunion has been the question of Anglican orders. In the past, traditionalist Catholics have held that Anglican orders are invalid on the grounds that the rite was not in the correct Catholic format and wording. Anglicans countered that their ordination rites contain all the essential elements of such rites (laying on of hands, epiclesis, etc). The Ecumenical Patriarch agreed with the Anglicans in 1923. Thanks largely to Vatican II and the new rites, the "magic words" arguement is going away. Today, the 1928 BCP (the liturgy favored by Anglicans serious about Catholic reunion) is demonstrably "more Catholic" than many of today's missals.
The next arguement was apostolic succession. Some Catholics contended that Anglican bishops are not in the historic line of episcopal succession. This arguement is also on the way out as Anglicans can document their succession back to a couple of medieval popes. When the bishops were ousted by Oliver Cromwell, they lived in exile until their restoration to their sees by Charles II (thus preserving the succession).
It doesn't "fade", it leaves. Two of the best priests in our Catholic diocese are former Episcopalians. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, left over priestesses for Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and splinter Anglican groups. Millions will leave over Vicky Gene.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. "That is what happens when you have been hashing out theological disputes and conundrums for 2000 years; there is an attendant accretion of insider jargon."
Not to mention TLA's.....!
"Sedevacantist" is a term made by combining the Latinate "Sede" for chair or "See" and "vacant" for vacant.
So, a "sedevacantist" is one who believes that a chair, in this case the Papal Chair - the Holy See - is vacant due to the failing to properly invest a pope.
I think that after the death of John Paul II and before the selection and installation of Benedict XVI, the Vatican itself printed stamps and minted coins that said "Sede Vacant" - the chair is empty. Some Catholic wag here made his tagline "I am feeling strangely sedevacantist!"
To answer someone else's point, the Orthodox are not sedevacantists. They also acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is senior in dignity to the other patriarchs, the primus inter pares, "first among equals". Were there be an ecumenical council at which Orthodox and Catholics all sat again, the Orthodox are the first to acknowledge that Pope would be seated at the head of the table, and would be the chair and run the agenda.
Where disagreement arises is over the extent of monarchical authority of the Pope: to what extent does the Pope have the authority to impose a doctrine on the Church over the objection of a Patriarch.
The original flaring of this controversy was the Great Schism itself and the assertions of papal supremacy in the filioque dispute.
I myself think that renunification with the Orthodox and the High Church Anglicans is eminently possible and theologically necessary. Jesus prayed for the UNITY of his Church. We can't keep defying him on this fundamental matter because we want to fight with each other. Where we cannot find a way, we have to pray to the Holy Spirit to cover us in our meetings so that He can show us a way we cannot devise for ourselves.
It is too important in a European world that is literally rotting at the core, both in Orthodox Russia and the Catholic West and Anglican England, with sexual libertinism and its intendant diseases running utterly rampant and getting deeper and deeper into the fabric of everything, legalized brothels, gay marriage, and sharply rising intolerance of Christianity. The Church has got to pull itself together and face this united.
"We are not divided, all one body we. One in hope and doctrine, one in charity. Onward Christian soldiers..."
"Over time opposition fades and everyone is happy again. Very few people resist change."
I think you ar quite right wrt the main body of the CofE, however, the TAC which has been in negotiations with the then Cardinal Ratzinger have already left the Canterbury communion. They are a free-standing body of about 40 bishops and 400,000 believers who are looking for a home to go to.
It is these, together with some of Forward in Faith who are likely to re-unite with Rome.
Dear sinkspur,
I very much doubt that there will be reunion between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church in the foreseeable future.
A significant part of the folks who call themselves Anglican, though, that could happen. I know that not only is TAC involved, but I know from private communications that at least one other significant Continuing Anglican body is close, as well. In fact, for a number of these groups, reunion with Rome is either an explicit, or a privately expressed, goal.
sitetest
It is quite true that ECUSA is a "broad church" and that many parishes and parishioners are on the low church, evangelical, XXXIX Articles end of the spectrum. Those folks will not even consider an Anglican Rite or joining in the Pastoral Provision.
But a significant number of parishes (and more in England than the U.S.) are Anglo-Catholic (most are organized under the Forward in Faith banner). The main reason they "haven't done much" is because they have always been opposed BOTH by the liberal-loony wing and the evangelicals . . . by the libs for their theology and the evangelicals for their ritual, which they find suspiciously Papist.
After the Vicki Gene debacle, though, the A/Cs and the evangelicals have made common cause to oppose the libs who have fallen off the deep end. This has publicized both in their different lines of dissent to ECUSA and the lib churchmen in England. They have buried their differences because this is not just an issue that can "fade away", like the prayer book revisions. This goes to the heart of Scripture and 2000 years of church teaching.
Instead of the high church folks making individual decisions to leave (as we did), the support of His Holiness could well allow a unified response from all the Forward in Faith aligned parishes at once.
I think we are very, very blessed in this Pope.
This is correct. However, the TAC has recently documented that their orders are through the PNCC. Rome has always acknowledged the validity of PNCC orders. So this gives the Vatican a way to recognize TAC orders without reversing the "absolutely null and utterly void" declaration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.