Skip to comments.If Only the Archbishop of Canterbury Dared to Speak With a Fraction of Benedict's Authority
Posted on 09/20/2010 11:13:54 AM PDT by marshmallow
Only a few days ago we were being assured by many voices on the BBC that Pope Benedict XVIs visit to Britain might well turn out to be a damp squib.
It was widely predicted that few would turn out to see him.
Some even suggested that protests against the heinous crimes of child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church might so dominate and disfigure his visit that there would be no room for the Pope to talk about anything else, or for us to listen.
In the event, the crowds were larger than had been forecast, if not as big as they were when the charismatic Pope John Paul II came to this country 28 years ago.
Particularly noticeable were the many enthusiastic young people among an estimated 80,000 congregation at a prayer vigil in Hyde Park in London on Saturday evening.
As for the protests about child abuse, they did not overwhelm the visit. Pope Benedict effectively admitted the guilt of the Roman Catholic Church.
At a mass in Westminster Cathedral on Saturday afternoon, he moved some members of the congregation to tears when he appeared to liken the victims suffering to Christs sacrifice on the cross.
He spoke of the shame and humiliation brought to the Church by the scandal.
This was a much more successful visit than the Roman Catholic hierarchy had dared to hope.
But I have a feeling it was more than that. In a manner wholly unlike our home-grown clerics, the Pope spoke to the soul of our country, affirming eternal moral verities which our own political and religious leaders normally prefer to avoid.
In essence, he has been asking us to examine what kind of country we want this to be.
He warned Britain not to lose sight of its Christian heritage...........
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If the archbiship were filled with the spirit he would speak with authority.
That ability to speak with authority is not a function of his position, it is entirely a function of spirit. Once the spirit departs a church it is gone. If the spirit is not present, it doesn’t matter what your title is.
The way to reclaim a church is to first reclaim the spirit. The way to reclaim a country is to first reclaim the spirit.
Post-Christian Britain is a mission field. It has to be reclaimed for the faith. If you are catholic or evangelical, the answer is the same. It has to be reclaimed. Don’t be shy. Preach Christ and let the chips fall.
So so true. As a protestant, I don’t always agree 100% with everything the Pope says. BUT at least i never doubt that he is fighting on *our* side. I don’t always think that about the leaders in the church of England.
Modern popes, since at least 1980 have been good guys, on the right side of history.
Certainly that was the buzz here on FR. Will it or won't it?
So what is it, FReepers? Did the Pope's visit turn out to be a damp squib?
I am not a Catholic and I don't think that I will ever become one. (I am Protestant.)
But the last two Popes have both been great men and seem to be doing good for humanity.
May God bless them.
Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't (in my opinion). This isn't a one-shot deal. This has to be the opening shot of a war to reclaim Britain to the faith.
I'm not catholic either. Thats ok; you guys work your side of the street and we'll work ours and we'll celebrate when we meet in the middle. Its one battle. When its done we'll buy you a beer and you can buy us a soda.
On the somewhat superficial level of butts on seats, media reaction and people cheering in the streets it was definitely not a damp squib. However, I'm not sure what, if anything, this means.
The real outcome of this visit will not be immediately obvious and it will depend on longer term issues; whether the powers-that-be take to heart his warnings about the place of religion in the public square, whether Catholic bishops get with the game plan, whether the C of E starts to move toward the Ordinariates, whether Catholics start to return to the practice of their faith etc.
The predictions of a "damp squib" emanated largely from the media and the talking heads who have the happy knack of being wrong about almost everything, so it's no real surprise that their predictions didn't come to pass.
I wouldn’t trust the judgment of anyone who knew what a damp squib was.
The long-term success of il Papa’s visit to the UK will be determined by millions of conversations held over the dinner table, or pub rail in Great Britain.
That is why he spoke to individual Anglicans directly,and not so much to their church heirarchy.
The bottom line: “I, as the holy descendent of St. Peter, and the Roman Catholic Church, are here, we haven’t changed, and we’re not going away.”
That and the "global authority" he keeps pushing.
You should look into the history of the popes. They’ve been fighting communism since it originated in the 19th century.
He didn’t appoint himself Pope, did he? The conclave appointed him. As it has every other pope.
And may God bless you, friend.
So glad their papers print the truth.
In no way was the Pope’s visit to Great Britain a damp squid.
Watch for the conversion, reverts coming back to the church and in four years or so — an explosion of vocations to the priesthood and consecrated religious life.
It WILL happen.
Note the prideful interpretations boasted about by many purporting to be christians but merely mirroring those described in Lk 12:9 and Mt 10:33.
No wonder Jesus suffered so in the Garden seeing the rejection of His work by those exercising their prideful free will.
Did you notice many of these threads like the one from the British newspaper, The Daily Mail, mentioned crowds of 80000 unlike the smaller numbers mentioned by bigoted naysayers.
Could you inform us as to why one would delibertly downplay the numbers as if that meant anything since the MESSAGE was the main focus.
Don't expect too many Anglicans to think that's swell.
There are so many buildings and churches named for Newman these days you'd think he was divine.
I suppose that's next.
There is no such beast as "apostolic succession." There is "apostolic teaching" which is all founded on the word of God.
The Holy Spirit protects believers. Christ protects His church.
Read your Bible and side-step the confusion.
Do you have any children?
The conclave has no authority. There is no such entity as a pope, except for Rome’s superstitions.
What an odd statement.
You believe that Apostolic Succession is a "beast"? It has been my experience that, when speaking of Christian theology, the term "beast" is used pretty much exclusively to refer to Satan, is that what you mean here?
Now, I understand that YOUR interpretation of the Bible does not allow for Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean that everyone believes the same thing. It's not even just Catholics who believe it.
This thread is about Catholics and Anglicans and, as much as it might trouble the Calvinists, both Catholics AND Anglicans believe in Apostolic Succession.
Is Apostolic Succession a "beast" when the Anglicans believe it? What about some of the Lutherans who believe it? What about the Methodists, they all believe it?
I suppose that's next.
Thanks for reminding me to pray for you.
The subject of this thread is definitely worthy of discussion, but it appears that we lost sight of it within the first ten posts.
I’m confused, doesn’t John Calvin have an entire religious movement with untold numbers of churches and buildings named after him? Do his followers consider him divine?
As with other threads, it seems that the anti-Catholics just read the title and argue based on what they think it’s about.
I'm not certain, but I think the phrase, "There is no such beast as "apostolic succession" is the theological equivalent of
In essence, he has been asking us to examine what kind of country we want this to be.
He warned Britain not to lose sight of its Christian heritage
We are not so very far behind our neighbors there.
It appears that you need some refinement in reading scripture as the measure of your scriptural interpretations have been taken and found wanting, replete with the sin of pride and presumption. Perhaps a trip to visit Paisley would be in order.
So far as Apostolic Succession, I believe in it. There is some evidence for Methodism after Wesley's consecration as a bishop by an Orthodox bishop. However, no succession is valid without concurrent faithfulness to scripture and the Holy Spirit. Some of the politically-based elevations in past times when church & state were wrongly entangled are not even as valid as that of Wesley.
However, it cannot be denied that Jesus said His Church would not be defeated. Therefore, given the requirement of ordination, succession does extend as an unbroken chain back to the Apostles and thence to Jesus Himself. This is only partially the definition used by others.
- In 1763, Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of the Diocese of Arcadia, who was visiting London at the time, consecrated Rev. John Wesley a bishop, and ordained several Methodist lay preachers as priests, including John Jones. However, Wesley could not openly announce his episcopal consecration without incurring the penalty of the Præmunire Act. In light of Wesley's episcopal consecration, the Methodist Church can lay a claim on apostolic succession, as understood in the traditional sense. Since the Rt. Rev. John Wesley ordained and sent forth every Methodist preacher in his day, who preached and baptized and ordained, and since every Methodist preacher who has ever been ordained as a Methodist was ordained in this direct "succession" from Wesley, then the Methodist Church teaches that it has all the direct merits coming from apostolic succession, if any such there be. This apostolic succession is recognized by Unity Catholic Church, an autocephalous Catholic Church.
Despite this fact, most Methodists view apostolic succession outside its high church sense. This is because Rev. John Wesley believed that bishops and presbyters constituted one order, citing an ancient opinion from the Church of Alexandria. Since the Bishop of London refused to ordain ministers in the British American colonies, this constituted an emergency, and as a result, on 2 September 1784, Rev. John Wesley, along with a priest from the Anglican Church and two other elders, operating under the ancient Alexandrian habitude, ordained Rev. Thomas Coke a superintendent, although Rt. Rev. Coke embraced the title bishop. Today, the Methodist Church follows this ancient Alexandrian practice as bishops are elected from and by the order of the presbyterate: the Discipline of the Methodist Church, in ¶303, affirms that "ordination to this ministry is a gift from God to the Church. In ordination, the Church affirms and continues the apostolic ministry through persons empowered by the Holy Spirit." It also uses sacred scripture in support of this practice, namely, 1 Timothy 4:12, which states:
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
St. Paul of Tarsus, KJV
The Methodist Church also buttresses this argument with the leg of Sacred Tradition of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral by citing the Church Fathers, many of whom concur with this view.
- 66.^ English Spirituality in the Age of Wesley. Regent College Publishing. http://books.google.com/books?id=yhqzG-kOic4C&pg=PA205&dq=erasmus+arcadia+wesley+bishop&lr=&cd=22#v=onepage&q=erasmus%20arcadia%20wesley%20bishop&f=false. Retrieved 2007-12-31. "By 1763, Wesley was desperate to obtain ordination for some of his lay preachers and when bishop after bishop refused, he took the dubious expedient -against the council of all his close friends and associates-of asking one Erasmus, who claimed to be bishop of Arcadia in Crete, to do the job. Erasmus knew no English, but agreed."
- 67.^ The Churchman, Volume 40. University of Michigan. http://books.google.com/books?id=fyDnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=erasmus+arcadia+ordained&cd=3#v=onepage&q=erasmus%20arcadia%20ordained&f=false. Retrieved 2007-12-31. "Erasmus was the Bishop of Arcadia, in Crete. In 1763, he visited London. Wesley found his credentials unexceptionable, and Dr. Jones, one of the preachers whom he had ordained, obtained testimonials concerning him from Symrna."
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
It’s a deal. Make mine Dos Equis XX!
But -- by design -- the Archbishop has no power to do anything other than to talk and try to convince people within the Anglican Communion. There's no penalty for not listening to him.
Whereas Benedict has both the power of the pulpit, and the power to put his words into action.
The Anglican Communion is NOT structured to give the Archbishop such authority as is given the Pope.
I used to be an Anglican, and I’m pretty familiar with that Church, its various traditions, and the history behind it.
Regretably, Henry VIII declared that he was the “head” of the Church of England, not the Pope. Later monarchs dropped the use of the words “Head of the Church,” but they did not drop the power to name the bishops of that Church. The Anglican hierarchy might suggest names to the king or queen, but it was the monarch who made the appointments.
In modern times, the Queen still names who will be Archbishop or bishop. But the Prime Minister “advises” her whom to choose. So it was Tony Blair who chose the current Archbishop of Canterbury.
There was a conservative, traditional candidate also put forward. But Blair chose the liberal, who was also known to favor the appointment of gay bishops, and whose theology was frankly more liberal than Christian. I don’t know if Blair is gay himself (he is, of course, married), but he staked a good deal of his political reputation toward the advancement of gay power in the UK.
One of this Archbishop’s first acts was to appoint a gay bishop. There was a firestorm, the bishop was forced to resign, and the Archbishop then put the gay agenda on the back burner for the moment.
But that’s basically why the Archbishop is what he is. Because the British people voted for Tony Blair, and Blair put his political agenda ahead of any Christian faith he might have.
After leaving office, Blair became a Catholic. But frankly and factually, not to be judgmental, he appears to be a very dissident and liberal sort of Catholic. I’m not sure why he bothered to convert—perhaps a promise he made to his wife.
True — all Christians are on the same side in the fight against godless secularism and islam
I’ll take my soda with some rum in it... Thanks.
The only way to reclaim the infilling of the Holy Spirit, is to reclaim obedience to the authority of His inspired word, the Bible.
Until the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other bishops and priests in the Church of England, do that, talking about being filled with a "spirit" is worse than worthless.