Pope Benedict XVI / Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
Posted on 09/17/2010 1:53:50 PM PDT by NYer
.- In his Friday visit to Lambeth Palace, Pope Benedict XVI met with Archbishop Rowan Williams to discuss the state of Catholic-Anglican relations. In public remarks, the two leaders recalled the example of Cardinal Newman and noted both the difficulties and the promise of ecumenical dialogue in Christian friendship.
Speaking in the Great Hall of the Archbishop’s Library, Pope Benedict opened by saying it was a pleasure for him to return the courtesy of visits the Archbishop of Canterbury had made to him in Rome. After greeting the assembled Anglican and Catholic bishops, he noted the “historic meeting” at Canterbury Cathedral in 1982 between Pope John Paul II and then-Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie.
They had prayed together for the “gift” of Christian unity at the place of St. Thomas of Canterbury’s martyrdom, the Pope continued.
“We continue today to pray for that gift, knowing that the unity Christ willed for his disciples will only come about in answer to prayer, through the action of the Holy Spirit, who ceaselessly renews the Church and guides her into the fullness of truth,” he continued.
While controversies in the Anglican Communion have arisen over the ordination of women as priests and bishops, the ordination of homosexuals and other theological and ethical issues, Pope Benedict did not speak of “difficulties” which are “well known to everyone here.”
Rather, Pope Benedict gave thanks “for the deep friendship that has grown between us and for the remarkable progress that has been made in so many areas of dialogue.”
“Let us entrust the fruits of that work to the Lord of the harvest, confident that he will bless our friendship with further significant growth.”
Anglican-Catholic dialogue has evolved in “dramatic ways” since Pope John XXIII and Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher met in 1960, he explained. The surrounding culture is “growing ever more distant from its Christian roots, despite a deep and widespread hunger for spiritual nourishment.” At the same time there is increasing cultural diversity and encounters with other religions.
This opens for Christians the possibility to explore with others the ways of witnessing to “the transcendent dimension of the human person and the universal call to holiness” which leads to the practice of personal and social virtue. Ecumenical cooperation is “essential” in this task and will “surely bear fruit in promoting peace and harmony.”
“At the same time, we Christians must never hesitate to proclaim our faith in the uniqueness of the salvation won for us by Christ, and to explore together a deeper understanding of the means he has placed at our disposal for attaining that salvation,” continued Pope Benedict.
Citing 1 Tim 2:4, he said that the eternal Son of the Father Jesus Christ is the truth “who has reconciled all things in himself by the power of his Cross.”
“We recognize that the Church is called to be inclusive, yet never at the expense of Christian truth,” the Pope added, calling this the “dilemma” of genuine ecumenism.
He cited the life of the 19th century cleric, theologian and Catholic convert John Henry Cardinal Newman. According to the Pontiff, Newman was nurtured by his Anglican background and matured during his ministry in the Church of England.
“He can teach us the virtues that ecumenism demands: on the one hand, he was moved to follow his conscience, even at great personal cost; and on the other hand, the warmth of his continued friendship with his former colleagues, led him to explore with them, in a truly irenical spirit, the questions on which they differed.”
“Your Grace, in that same spirit of friendship, let us renew our determination to pursue the goal of unity in faith, hope, and love, in accordance with the will of our one Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” the Holy Father told the Archbishop, concluding his remarks with a blessing.
According to Vatican Radio, Archbishop Williams’ remarks praised Pope Benedict’s “consistent and penetrating analysis” of the state of European society as a “major contribution” to the debate on the relationship between Church and culture. The Archbishop of Canterbury also cited the Pope’s comments at his 2005 Inaugural Mass in which he said that nothing is lost by letting Christ into our lives because only in Christ’s friendship is humanity’s great potential revealed.
Discussing Cardinal Newman, Archbishop Williams said that when he decided to convert to Catholicism his Anglican friend Rev. Edward Bouverie Pusey meditated on the “parting of friends.” Discussing Anglican-Catholic relations, Pusey said, “it is what is unholy on both sides that keeps us apart.”
After their public remarks, the two religious leaders met in private. According to Vatican Radio, this meeting affirmed the need to proclaim the Gospel message of Salvation in Jesus Christ amid profound cultural transformation while also living lives of holiness.
The two leaders agreed upon the importance of improving ecumenical relations and of continuing theological dialogue in the face of new internal and external challenges to unity. This theological dialogue should focus on the notion of the Church as a local and a universal communion.
Additionally, the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury reflected on the serious situation of Christians in the Middle East and called upon all Christians to pray for and support their brothers’ and sisters’ peaceful witness in the Holy Land. They also discussed the needs of the poor and urged international leadership to fight hunger and disease.
Following their private meeting, the two traveled together to the Palace of Westminster and to Evening Prayer at Westminster Abbey.
Pope Benedict will beatify Cardinal Newman on Sunday.
That was not the options that you presented.
Everyone claims to be catholic. Catholic means different things to different Christians. I suspect, although I am not certain, what you mean is Roman Catholic. If that is what you mean by catholic, the Anglican church is Protestant.
The problem is that the common teaching, at least as far as Roman Catholics are concerned, is that only a Baptism by a Priest ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop is “valid.”
I respect their belief, however, and don’t argue it. I just disagree, and consider my Baptism, by a Priest of the Anglican Communion, valid. I just don’t make a big deal of it.
The problem is that the common teaching, at least as far as Roman Catholics are concerned, is that only a Baptism by a Priest ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop is “valid.”Nope. The problem is that what so many people THINK they KNOW about what the Church teaches just 'tain't so. Like your belief. Here is the TRUTH:
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.[57] In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
I”m not sure I’m following ... The Catholic church considers any baptism valid as long as its done in the trinitarian form. (father, son, spirit). even lay people can perform a baptism in the event of an emergency.
Almost right, the form, matter and intent all have to be present. That quibble aside, you are right.
You wrote:
“Is English your second language? I cannot make any sense of what you saying. There must be translation problem.”
The problem of understanding is all yours. No one else has had that problem thus far. I suggest you try the hooked on phonics series - that seems to be about your level from what I’ve seen of children. Try it for a few months and get back to me.
A heretic with a common baptism?
You bet... And while humans mark time and experience time the same... God (all billions of years in service you know) blinks and a thousand of our years pass.
You are absolutely wrong about the roman catholic definition baptism... Many non-Catholic baptisms are deemed perfectly valid by the church including those of the Anglican and Lutheran traditions.
Maybe the problem is all mine. That is always a possibility. I will share your comments with others and see if I am the only one that cannot understand your assertions. Maybe they can make sense of them.
You wrote:
“Maybe the problem is all mine. That is always a possibility. I will share your comments with others and see if I am the only one that cannot understand your assertions. Maybe they can make sense of them.”
Feel free to do so. And since it will be the usual peanut gallery of posters you’ll be sharing it with I know there’s a great chance that they too will suddenly be unable to comprehend the written word.
If you don’t understand that Anglicans share a common baptism with Catholics... I really can’t help you.
Thanks for posting the background on the common baptism.
This is probably a waste of time on my part, but before you can have share a common baptism, you must first have a valid baptism. Does the Anglican community have a valid baptism? Is being baptized in the name of the Mother, Child, and Womb a valid baptism?
I absolutely welcome that correction.
I will amend my statement in this way:
My experience has been that my Baptism, which was performed by an Anglican Priest, is often considered invalid by Roman Catholics.
This leads me to ask, “If the Baptism is considered valid, why can those people not be considered Catholics?”
By no means am I attempting to incite an argument with Roman Catholics. I think by now people know I side with the Roman Catholics more often than not, and consider myself Catholic. I am just curious what you think of this aspect.
As I said to other posters who have offered correction, I appreciate it. Like many others, I am a victim of common teachings that are, apparently, wrong.
I do wonder, however, why so many Roman Catholics voice their opinions that I have not been Baptized because it was by an Anglican, rather than a Roman Catholic priest.
How does this influence the ability of those Baptized in the Anglican Communion to take the Eucharist at a Roman Catholic Church?
I was not talking about those, such as yourself, that have left the Episcopal Church. I commend you on your decision, and I suspect that it must not have been an easy one. There is much about the Anglican Church that I have found attractive. I was referring to those, such as the Scottish Episcopal Church, that have decided to rid itself of masculine references to God. Not that long ago I would never have questioned the validity of a baptism in the Episcopal or Anglican community. Today, I have to ask in what Name were you baptized?
Gotcha.
For what it is worth, it was an exceptionally easy choice. I started attending St. Vincent’s Cathedral just prior to the split, when all the REASONS for the split were being discussed. I was disgusted by what I heard, and was 100% behind the decision to split.
I didn’t have years and years of “loyalty to the Church” holding me back. I was able to focus on my loyalty to Christ and support a decision that truly honored Him, rather than a decision which would demean Him and His sacrifice.
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.