Papal Supremacy Synod

[M.SIGGA]

By extreme and highly unprobable chance that a decision was made by the Church of England to accept Papal Supremacy in the upcomming Synod would mean that almost everything outside the Anglo-Catholic movement, including the Calvinistic doctrines, would have be thrown out. I think there is little chance for the total reunion of Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism to ever occur because of actions taken by the Anglican Church since the late 1980s. Their concept of Faith and Reason use to be the biggest dividing factor, now those dividers have increased to having a female priesthood and new views concerning homosexuality. Are synods such as this even necessary anymore? I think they shoud embrace thier decision to interpret scripture by themself instead of backtracking back to Catholicism because some doctrinal decisions they have recently made seem to be irreversible in many aspects.

Synod to debate Pope's supremacy

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent and Jonathan Wynne-Jones

(Filed: 19/01/2004)

The Church of England is being asked to take its biggest step towards accepting the primacy of the Pope and the concept of infallibility since Henry VIII broke from Rome 450 years ago.

A joint Roman Catholic and Anglican report arguing that the Pope should be recognised as the "universal primate" is to be debated by the General Synod next month.

Church leaders anxious to promote unity have welcomed the proposals, but they will meet fierce resistance from conservative Protestants.

 

Pope: may devolve power to appease Anglicans 

The Rev David Phillips, the general secretary of the Church Society and a Synod member, said: "We would reject universal primacy even if the papacy is reformed. There is no way we would want to be linked to the Roman Catholic Church. On some issues, its teaching is even worse now than it was at the Reformation."

The Gift of Authority report was published several years ago by the Third Anglican/ Roman Catholic International Commission (Arcic).

It argued that Anglicans should accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as long as the Pope devolved much of his power to his bishops and local churches.

More controversially, the report also suggests that the Church as a body could, in certain circumstances, make infallible pronouncements on matters of teaching.

Most Anglicans, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, are opposed to the present concept of papal infallibility, which allows the Pope to make such declarations, which cannot be overturned, on his own.

In reality, however, there have been only a few such ex cathedra statements, relating mainly to the Virgin Mary. Catholic teaching on controversial issues such as birth control is not covered.

The Pope has recently signalled his willingness to re-examine his role and even evangelical bishops have indicated that they could accept him as a spokesman.

However, many will view the Synod debate as largely academic as unity talks have been derailed by the Anglican decision to ordain women and the row over homosexuality.

Moreover, the Bishop of Peterborough, the Rt Rev Ian Cundy, who is the chairman of the Church of England's Council for Christian Unity, is expected to slow progress on the Arcic report further when the Synod meets from Feb 9.

While the bishop will welcome moves towards greater unity between the Churches, he will criticise aspects of the report and ask for more detail and clarity in key areas.

[PedroX]

M. Sigga,

It seems that they would acknowledge the Pope, as long as he was just another Archbishop of Canterbury...a kindly old man that is largely ineffectual. Devolve authority to the Bishops? Isn't that what got the Anglicans in all this mess?

I know I'm probably just being a humbug, but accept the Papacy, or don't.

peace...

[Laudate_Dominum]

Sadly for them there are those who call themselves Catholics and many in the Anglican communion who are in fact modernist heretics who would see no obstacles to unity except for Rome's arch-conservatism. Once the next Pope ordains women and sanctions homosexual unions the two Churches can reunite.

It's all about the spirit of the age baby, and modern "critical" hermeneutics.

Personally I'm hoping that the next Pope rules with an iron fist and spends the first five years of his pontificate writing bulls of excommunication for all the wolves out there who are clothed as sheep. We'll see what happens. At least we "conservatives", Orthodox is more accurate, have the promise of the Holy Spirit on our side. I'm banking on that.

[Ellenita]

Once you have accepted the origins of apostolic succession there is absolutely no going back and those who understand or explore the roots of the establishment of the anglican church have no choice but to confront this issue. There would have to be a huge 'undoing' of the doctrine and structure of the anglican church and an acceptance of her rather dubious historical beginnings which are very much 'glossed over'. This would also have far reaching consequences in the UK since much of our constitution is tied up with the anglican church! I really cannot see it happening....though I do believe in miracles so.....

There is evidence that quite a number of 'high anglicans' are 'converting' (returning home?! :D ).....

[Laudate_Dominum]

There is evidence that quite a number of 'high anglicans' are 'converting' (returning home?!

Yes, this is quite true. I have the honor of knowing some such converts. That is at least one good fruit of the apostasy of the Anglican church. I think the liberals will keep getting more liberal and the people with more orthodox sensibilities will be forced to flee and since all roads lead to Rome... Eventually liberal (modernist) distortions of Christianity will become so deviant there will be nothing left for the Church to do but condemn error. A little of the old charitible anathema.

And in fact many whole congregations of Anglicans have come back into the fold.

If you think apostasy was too strong a word I don't know what else to call such a radical betrayal of the Gospel and of Christian morality as the embrace of the homosexual lifestyle.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

It hurts to hear "We would reject universal primacy even if the papacy is reformed. There is no way we would want to be linked to the Roman Catholic Church. On some issues, its teaching is even worse now than it was at the Reformation." (Which issues would those be anyway?!)

OUCH! Why do they have to hate us so much? :sadder:

[Ellenita]

The anglican church is a very broad church in terms of it's beliefs. The evangelical wing will always oppose the idea of unity with the catholic church and will without a doubt splinter if there is any real move towards healing the original split. There is a vast difference between the way people think in the 'high' church and the 'low' church. Low church people would not dream of calling themselves 'anglo catholic' for example and their understanding is more aligned to Methodist understanding.

My doubts about seeing unity between the anglican and catholic church rests entirely on the issue of infallibility and apostolic succession which I do not think will ever be accepted as a whole in the anglican church.

Of course, the article is published during this week, the week of prayer for Christian unity (in the UK at least!) and there are some quite strong developmets in terms of ecumenical services and working together over here....but that debate is for another thread!!!

[Anna]

OUCH! Why do they have to hate us so much? :sadder:

Because they love sin so much.

Oremus.

-_-

[Norseman82]

There's a LOT that has to be cleaned up in the Anglican church before Rome would accept it back.

[M.SIGGA]

I agree with Ellenita's post. I think it's gonna end up with individual Anglicans leaving the Church of England comming back to Rome b/c extreme measures would have to be taken in order for the entire Church to come back to Catholicism. It will be this or a split between pro-Protestant and pro-Catholic Anglicans. I personally don't think the English people as a whole will be too psyched about the amount of effort it would take to change all their laws and such. Maybe if the royal fam somehow converted back to Catholicism maybe that might initiate something?

[God Conquers]

haha! That would pose some problems M.SIGGA. Like Mary Stuart, and James II, a Catholic King/Queen of England is faced with some tough problems.

1-They are Catholic and submit to the Pope as the head of the Church.

2- Their constitution and title declare THEM the head of the Church.

3- Catholics aren't allowed to be Kings or Queens; Parliament would toss them out as precedent shows.

[M.SIGGA]

haha! That would pose some problems M.SIGGA. Like Mary Stuart, and James II, a Catholic King/Queen of England is faced with some tough problems.

1-They are Catholic and submit to the Pope as the head of the Church.

2- Their constitution and title declare THEM the head of the Church.

3- Catholics aren't allowed to be Kings or Queens; Parliament would toss them out as precedent shows.

As an American I'm not a big fan of Kings and Queens, so I wouldn't have a prob with all this! I think the sky would almost have to open up for this to happen, but I think it might be a way for the Church of England to possibly examine it's apostasy and possibly come back to Rome - at least the conservatives.

I don't think the submission thing will be a prob these days since it's not like Renaissance times anymore. The monarchs in Spain, Monaco, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Liechenstein are all Catholic and JPII has no probs with any of them. I think it would the Brits some good and after so many years all those beautiful cathedrals could have a mass celebrated inside again.

I also heard in a CBN report that a trend in Britain right now is leaning towards a return to orthodoxy and that conversions to the Eastern Orthodox Churches is actually on the rise. How true is this? Think of how Catholicism might be able to step in!

[God Conquers]

I don't think the submission thing will be a prob these days since it's not like Renaissance times anymore. The monarchs in Spain, Monaco, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Liechenstein are all Catholic and JPII has no probs with any of them. I think it would the Brits some good and after so many years all those beautiful cathedrals could have a mass celebrated inside again.

Its a problem if your constitution forbids it. In the US, there were constitutional concerns over Kennedy's presidency because of his catholicism and he had to assure people that his politics would trump his faith.

It's also heresy to call yourself the head of the Church. If you were the king of England, even if you claimed to be Catholic, your country's laws say that you are the head of the Church, and are in quite a conundrum, b/c you can't change the law.

[Ellenita]

It would be impossible for the monarchy (as an institution) in England to become catholic - we would need a change in the law for that to be able to happen, which would involve Parliament, the very institution which demanded the law in the first place! Any one person who chooses to 'convert' within the royal family - and this includes the wider family, 'minor royals', has to formally relinquish their 'rights' to the throne and probably also incurs the loss of some titles and priviliges aswell. You also have to give up the right to the throne if you marry a catholic but have not personally converted yourself.

We have no written constitution but our state and the church of England are very deeply interlinked. The church presides over all formal state affairs such as the coronation of the monarch; royal weddings and funerals; even leads the services of remembrance for the war dead every year (though ministers from other faiths have more recently taken and active part in this). Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords and are directly involved in voting on the law of the land since all our legislation has to be passed in this house aswell as the House of Commons. The Archbishops of Canturbury and York (the highest significant offices in the Anglican church) are appointed by the Prime Minister and the Queen - although the names may have been forwarded for consideration by the bishops as a whole, it is the Queen who has to give final approval.

It would be more than constitutional crisis if the monarchy became catholic, it would mean undoing 500 years of state history and legislation...there are too many people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for this to happen! I sincerely hope that we've moved on somewhat from beheading royals who challenge the status quo as was our preferred choice not so very long ago.....though, there are arguments about Diana's death which you probably know more about than those of us living in the UK since our press is fairly censored about such matters!

The CBN report about a return to orthodoxy in the UK may well be right. We have a growing community originally from Eastern europe living in the UK now and their cultural influence will no doubt have an impact. There is also considerable disquiet from both wings of the anglican community about recent developments within the church.....the church is certainly percieved as being weaker now than ever before, so many individuals are looking for a church which expresses strong leadership in terms of their Christain faith.

There is a steady flow of anglicans 'returning' to the catholic church. I have heard of four anglican priests converting in the past year in my diocese alone and there may be others who I don't know about.....the figures for lay people are much higher of course.....

[God Conquers]

We have no written constitution but our state and the church of England are very deeply interlinked.

This is not true. It's said all the time, but is false. The Constitution of the United Kingdom is written down, except not on a single piece of paper or a small book. Their constitiution fills libraries. Every law, every court case, is part of the English constitiution, which stretches back over 800 years! Ellenita, you have a constitution which is written down, its just not easily accessible.

[God Conquers]

P.S. I say this because it's my constitution as well, but we buggered it up when we brought it over.

[Ellenita]

God Conquers, thanks! :D

Yes, of course we do have a written constitution in that all the law is recorded and has to be adhered too.....and equally it is an evolving constitution since laws are rewritten and we are subject to international law and european law since we are a member of the EU too. And there is also the Magna Carta.....

But it can be confusing to people who are used to operating under a clearly written constitution......

.....and I'll never be able to 'plead the fifth' in court!!!!! :lol:

[God Conquers]

Lucky for you! You have more solidly and historically enshrined defenses!

And, yup, It all starts with the Magna Carta.

[M.SIGGA]

thanks ellenita. What would the UK government do if such a thing would ever happen? Would the monarchy be completely done away with?

[Ellenita]

M.Sigga, it's a difficult question to answer - I guess it would only be a major problem if they converted en bloc! I wonder if we'd have another civil war?! There are those in parliament who would like to do away with the royal family anyway....and certainly there is reform of the House of Lords going on with the reduction of the numbers of Lords who have inherited their titles...remember these would have formed the royal court in the past....and there is also some small reform of the royal household - the major royals are now required to reveal how they have accounted for the money given to them from the civil list (my taxes!) for example.

There would be a 'constitutional crisis' if the successor to the throne declared he was going to become Catholic and still retain his right to the throne. There is nothing to my knowledge which prevents him from converting to another religion however (anyone know?) and Charles is reportedly very interested in Islam.

And while I'm on a rant about the royals ....

The title 'defender of the faith' is still conferred on them at their coronation. This was the thing that made me begin to question the position of the anglican church, since Charles wants to be known as defender of faiths' (plural) and thus the 'head' of the anglican church will not be willing to be solely 'defender of Christianity'. However I have recently found out from an incredibly well researched source (Thanks Likos! :D ) that the original title was actually conferred on Henry VIII by the Pope for Henry's defence of the Catholic church against Luther before he decided to create the anglican church and set himself up as head. So the royals have absolutely no right to retain this title anyway! Of course we are not taught about this over here and I guess most people would assume, like me, that the title refers to Christianity and the anglican church.

I'll find the links to the articles Likos sent me if anyone wants them. :)