Bosco Peters, prompted by a commenter, David (who also comments here) posts on a tiny but significant detail from B16's stealth bombing raid on the CofE.
Here is the thing. B16 is an elderly bomber, enjoying a late run when he could as easily have been consigned to the aviation museum. Soon he will be replaced. If he is replaced by a 'Leo' rather than a 'John or Paul' then we presume the clock is being wound back to 1870 and V2 shot out of the sky along the way. If so would even the most ecumenically minded Anglican with a scintilla of Protestantism in his bones wish to pursue further ARCIC rounds?
But could B16 be a rogue pope, to be viewed by historians of the future as aberrant with respect to the trajectory through V2? Might his successor be more in keeping with John XXIII and Paul VI in respect of building bridges across the ecumenical chasm?
ADDENDUM (revised, thanks to further clarification from Bosco Peters in comments below): in the comments to Bosco Peters' post linked above, an alternative explanation of the wearing of Leo's stole is given. I.e. B16 wore it in connection with John Newman's beatification because it is the stole Leo wore when he ordained Newman. (But, in fact, as clarified by Bosco, Leo did not ordain Newman!!!).
7 comments:
Just because it is claimed on a blog that Pope Benedict XVI wore a particular stole belonging to a predecessor don't make it so - such claims and over reactions to them might just be mischievous making by all parties.
Personally I don't know, don't care and don't want to buy into it whatever the truth of said claim.
As for Ecumenism, well as this blog laments often enough the Anglican communion's struggles to maintain internal harmony - how on earth can such a body hope to achieve communion with the wider Church?
Prompted? Prompted?
Father Bosco makes his own editorial decisions, as do you. I merely alerted him to the insult.
And yes, for the first Bishop of Rome to visit England as the head of the Vatican State in the over 400 years since the separation of the Church of England from the Church at Rome to visit one of the premier churches of the Church of England and honor the occasion by wearing the stole of his predecessor, out of all of his predecessors, who canonized the nullity of Anglican Orders in a Papal Bull, your orders Peter, is a horrendous slap in the face.
Why do you run after these people Peter?
Hi David,
Our ministry comes from Christ not from men.
I cannot dismiss the claims, relevance, let alone presence of the overwhelmingly largest body of Christians in the world.
I am not sure that "these people" is the language I would wish to use of 1 billion+ RCs!!
Peter, I have no issue with the +1 billion RCs. I sincerely believe that if the majority of them had the opportunity to actually know the behavior of their leaders, to understand the significance of so much of the harm that they cause in this world, that they would be ashamed, that they would not agree with the Pope or the Vatican Curia.
The folks who you appear to scurry after are not the +1 billion, but their corrupt leaders.
••••
I read the Metropolitan's talk today, I finally had time to devote to understanding the English. I was shocked by some of his statements about Anglican Apostolicity. About how the Russian church was on the road to recognizing that the CoE indeed held Apostolic Succession. But then the CoE went and ordained women, and is now on the verge of having female bishops, and so Russian recognition of Anglican Orders halts, dead in its tracts because we could not have such succession and do such things.
By that logic, Rome and Moscow lost Apostolicity long ago. Those two churches have a lot of blood on their hands. They have long histories of corruption. Their excuse? The end justifies the means, they ultimately saved Mother Church.
No, they rescued a vacated husk. For their sins they are but whitewashed tombs, filled with the bones of the dead.
Hi David,
Churches have problems, leaders commit sin. Personally I cannot join you with the language you use about the Roman and Eastern churches as though no finger pointing is not warranted towards the Protestant western churches.
I also cannot join you in (what I feel is) a dismissal of the leadership of the Roman church as 'corrupt' while the people of the church are (seemingly) deemed innocent. Leadership comes from the people. The faults of the Roman church (and the virtues) are of the whole church not of one portion of it. The sins of specific individuals in any church are, of course, the responsibility of those individuals.
Re. your ADDENDUM: Just to stop the Internet Chinese whispers syndrome from taking off, Peter: no one is saying this is the stole that Leo XIII wore when he ordained Newman – that is your new gloss on the comments. In any case the reference remains: Newman’s Anglican orders were regarded as absolutely null and utterly void even prior to the publication of Apostolicae Curae.
Blessings
Bosco
Just to further clarify: Newman was ordained a Roman Catholic priest by Cardinal Giacomo Filippo Fransoni, the Prefect of Propaganda Fidei, on Trinity Sunday, 30th May 1847. The pope at the time was Pius IX who was pope almost 32 years. Leo XIII began his papacy 20 February 1878. By then Newman was in England as an Oratorian, Roman Catholic priest. I hope that helps.
Post a Comment