Benedict XVI grants an audience to Archbp. Williams

From today’s meeting between His Holiness the Vicar of Christ and the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury:

Technorati Tags: ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Benedict XVI grants an audience to Archbp. Williams

  1. david andrew says:

    What’s Archbishop Williams got in his hands? I’ll wager it’s not a box of Vatican Fudge!

  2. mdillon says:

    Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury: “Blah, blah, blah…and no one told me.”

    His Holiness, the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI: “What did you expect Roland?”

  3. becket1 says:

    I think now we need to seriously start thinking about how we will identify Anglicans. We will essentially have three groups of Anglicans. Anglicans who are in communion with Rome (will we begin to call them just Anglo Catholics, or Anglican Catholics), Anglicans who are in communion with Canterbury (will we now just call them Protestant Anglicans, or Liberal Anglicans), and finally Evangelical Anglicans (will we call them also Protestant Anglicans, or just Evangelical Anglicans). We can no longer just say Anglicans, like we do Catholics.

  4. Rellis says:

    Becket1, since we’re dealing with the Anglicans, there is always room for more schisa.

    I would add a fourth category. I would call these “Lace Anglicans.” These are Anglicans who think of themselves as totally orthodox in matters theological and liturgical. They simply cannot bring themselves to separate their church from their state. They are basically the SSPX plus England minus the Pope.

  5. Vincenzo says:

    “What’s Archbishop Williams got in his hands? I’ll wager it’s not a box of Vatican Fudge!”

    The Holy Father gave him a gold cross.

  6. Jack Hughes says:

    please remember people Dr williams does not possess valid holy orders so he is not really a bishop (at best a schismatic laymen in fancy dress), we should start refering to him as Dr williams (the man does have a phd) or my favorite the archlaymen of canterbury

  7. jlmorrell says:

    The “so-called Archbishop” would probably be more proper. But, of course, this wouldn’t be ecumenical.

  8. Sandra_in_Severn says:

    Considering what I have read about his personal beliefs, is he even Christian???

  9. john 654 says:

    “In Williams Hands”

    Maybe its a signed copy of Catechism of the Catholic Church

  10. Sandra_in_Severn is on to something. When he was first appointed as “Archbishop”, Williams identified himself as a druid. One of the titles of the British monarch is: Defender of the Faith. This title was given by the then Pope to young Henry VIII(!) who had written a tract condemning the then current teachings of Fr. Martin Luther who was the first to break with Rome. A druid? Without the strong steady hand of a strong Pope (as the last fifty years have demonstrated for Catholics), Man’s religious beliefs are limited only by his imagination.

  11. Okay, he’s not really an archbishop, or a bishop, or a priest. But he thinks he is, and enough of like mind believe this as well. So to call him archlayman or put his title in quotes may be theologically correct, but if we’re going to deal with him at all, it’s not civil.

    I’d be more worried about that sinister look on his face, especially after he’s been running around Rome shooting his mouth off about how Rome should allow women to make nice and ordain women like he does. Then again, that’s not civil either. But he’s fighting a losing battle, and he knows it, so we can only look with pity on a desperate man (who probably is kicking himself for ever calling himself a druid).

    In the meantime, the only thing I wouldn’t call him is “Mister Congeniality.”

  12. robtbrown says:

    It’s Roman slick. First, the OR identifies various Anglicans as Bishop this and Archbishop that. Then, when said Anglicans decide to become Catholics, they are told, “Oh, by the way, your orders are not valid.”

  13. Good point, robtbrown. In the Catholic Church which existed before the Second Vatican Council, our notes reflect that Pope Leo XIII reminded the Anglicans/Episcopalians in 1897 that their orders were not valid under the same rules which the Vatican applied to the SSPX in 1988, i.e., their bishops were appointed without Vatican approval. The original Anglican bishops were themselves in schism. In the Church which exists since the Second Vatican Council, these rules did not apply until they apply, i.e., until Anglicans wish to become Catholic, at which time the rules of the hermeneutic of continuity replace the hermeneutic of discontinuity as now we are speaking as adults to adults. Does everyone follow?

  14. moon1234 says:

    BZZZZZZT. Wrong. SSPX orders are 100% valid. They are illicit. The proper form, intent and apostolic succession were followed for the SSPX bishops and priests. This makes them 100% Catholic Bishops and Priests. Their ordinations were illicit, but not invalid. They are true Bishops (With no offical authority within the church) and the priests are true priests (With no valid incardination papers, hence limited powers).

    The Anglicans do NOT have valid apostolic succession nor have they always followed proper form or intent. The ordained married men which is not proper form, hence invalid orders. The same goes for a Bishop. Once valid Apostolic succession ceases, new valid bishops can not be made. This means that no valid priests could be made either.

    This is why case by case examinations need to be made for EACH priest in the Anglican communion. MOST will not have valid ordinations. I say MOST as some are former valid Catholic priests. Their ordinations would be valid, but they may be in an irregular position and able to hold an official office in the Catholic church. Once a valid priest, always a valid priest. Whether said priest holds any official function in the church is dependant on his situation.

    Virtually no cradle anglican who went through formation/ordination in an Anglican community would possess valid orders. The Anglican Bishop would not have valid orders so he could not create new priests.

    Don’t confuse Anglicans with Catholics. The first group has virtually no valid priests while the second are most likely 100% Catholic Priests with valid orders.

  15. David2 says:

    SSPX Orders are valid but illicit, and the SSPX Bishops are recognised as such by the Holy See.

    On the other hand, as Leo XIII held in his 1896 Bull, Apostolicae Curae, Anglican “Orders are absolutely null and utterly void”, because the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 imposed a Rite which was itself defective in form and in intention.

    The defect of form and intention was not a question of the ordination of married men (which is entirely possible), rather, it was that Anglicans rejected Catholic teaching on the Scrificial Priesthood and had an heretical concept of Holy Orders, something of which the SSPX cannot be accused.

  16. JFrater says:

    People seem to not understand how fundamental the lack of Anglican orders are – the Anglican’s didn’t lose apostolic succession by ordaining married priests, nor through schism. The lost them because they adopted an invalid form of ordination WAY BACK in the 1500s. They have not had legitimacy since their first years. When good Queen Mary became Queen and restored the true faith, the Pope sent special delegates to ordain (unconditionally) all of those who had been ordained under the Reign of Elizabeth I because they were invalidly ordained. Any man ordained with the Edwardine Ordinal was deemed to be invalidly ordained. The Edwardine Ordinal was put into universal English use in 1552. The Anglican Church has not validly ordained a single cleric since that date. Any valid Bishops they have would have to be ordained by Old Catholics or Orthodox Bishops using their own ritual – not the Anglican ritual. Pope Leo XIII merely confirmed this in the 1800s with his Bull “Apostolicae Curae”, in which he deemed Anglican orders to be “absolutely null and utterly void”.

  17. David2 says:

    JFrater, Mary I preceded Elizabeth I as Queen. Otherwise, you’re pretty much on the money. Anglicans, unlike the Orthodox and some other schismatic sects, don’t have a Catholic understanding of Holy Orders, so they can’t confer them. End of story.

  18. asperges says:

    Perhaps the box contains an application form and a “So you want to become a Catholic” booklet. Or it could be a 1962 missal, of course.

    All levity aside, this is a decisive moment in the history of the Church. We should pray for its happy outcome. No Pope for several hundred years has ever been so well-placed to heal the rift of centuries. The secular UK press has stopped being outraged or even particularly interested in the subject for the moment. They will no doubt wake up again and rattle sabres at the next stage.

  19. robtbrown says:

    Good point, robtbrown. In the Catholic Church which existed before the Second Vatican Council, our notes reflect that Pope Leo XIII reminded the Anglicans/Episcopalians in 1897 that their orders were not valid under the same rules which the Vatican applied to the SSPX in 1988, i.e., their bishops were appointed without Vatican approval.

    Wrong.

    1. The fact that a bishop has been consecrated without Vatican approval has nothing to do with validity of episcopal orders.

    2. The nullity of Anglican orders is a function of defective Sacramental Form and Intention, not of Vatican approval.

    The original Anglican bishops were themselves in schism. In the Church which exists since the Second Vatican Council, these rules did not apply until they apply, i.e., until Anglicans wish to become Catholic, at which time the rules of the hermeneutic of continuity replace the hermeneutic of discontinuity as now we are speaking as adults to adults. Does everyone follow?
    Comment by William H. Phelan

    The fact that a group is in schism doesn’t affect the validity of their sacerdotal/episcopal consecration.

    The Vatican has never said that the SSPX episcopal consecrations were not valid. In fact, Fr McBrien is only one I know of who has written that there are invalid.

    Finally, I think you missed the entire point of my comment.

  20. Kimberly says:

    BXVI looks like he has lost weight. I pray he is well.

  21. MQ says:

    Respectively, the Archbishop is a loon, and 20 minutes is more than enough time to spend with him.

  22. I want to humbly thank ALL of you for your patience and understanding. I truly stand in awe at the scholarship and erudition of your comments. It is gratifying and encouraging to me who have become somewhat cynical on Church related subjects over the last forty years. to know that laymen have such deep knowledge of the Church and Its history.

    This gives me great hope.

  23. Meanwhile, back in the real world where the Pope is trying to help Anglicans out, we read in Anglicanorum Coetibus (sp?) that though the orders of the Anglicans aren’t valid, they will be given the honors of a bishop if they but ask after joining up.

    Fortunately, we comboxers aren’t the Pope. :)

  24. puma19 says:

    There has been much hooha on the matter of the Apostolic constitution issued by the Vatican on anglican issue and ‘coming across’ to the Catholic Church. Indeed it has amazed me, that with certain senior Anglicans getting upset (including Rowan Williams) they have forgotten that unilaterally Henry VIII broke from Rome, set himself up as Head of the Church in England, then went ahead and destroyed the monasteries, killed hundreds of good monks, not to mention the holy men and women who were martyred. Included in this throng of martyrs were Thomas More and John Fisher. Are we really saying that what is happening now is anything to compare to the angst, the scandal of the 16th century which gave birth to a schismatic group who forced thousands to bend their knees to Henry VIII?
    If the Castholic Church wishes to show its beliefs in a male priesthood, a non-female episcopacy which has been there for 2000 years, then this is as it ought be. That many anglicans find their communion going nowhere and very public gay and female ‘bishops’ being implanted on their people, and now wish to move to Rome, then if the Spirit is there to bring them to the true faith, the pope is right to bring this about.
    The real problem is that the anglicans under Williams have no authority, no direction and have no spiritual compass that it directed by the Gospel.
    Williams has been bending over backwards to avoid a schism in his ranks. He has no authority and is scorned by the liberals in the USA and UK. The fact is the major growth now in the Church is in Asia, Africa and S America.
    There are many conversions now to Catholicism (even amidst priestly scandals) and this only shows that the faith of 2000years of solid apostolic ministry is where the true Church resides and operates, albeit with imperfections of human nature.
    The Catholic Church and the Pope in particular are not to blame. Rowan Williams has lost his way, the Anglican Church has lost its way and should we doubt this to be, can the Holy Spirit ever support or strengthen disunity of those who seek to preach the opposite of the Gospel and its traditions?
    And if we want more proof, how is it that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is quiet on all this? It is the Queen herself who holds this role: a role that has no spiritual or theological justification. Lovely woman, devoted monarch, but no spiritual leader in the mould of Edward the Confessor or King ALbert of Belgium.
    Deo Gratias.

  25. edwardo3 says:

    When did Dr. williams start wearing the Roman simar? And a detachable one to boot?

  26. david andrew says:

    When did Dr. williams start wearing the Roman simar? And a detachable one to boot?

    The Anglicans/Episcopalians just love to play liturgical dress-up.

    Just pick up a copy of the Whippell or Almy catalogues and feast your eyes.

  27. An American Mother says:

    Mr. Phelan:

    Dr. Williams is certainly misguided, and most certainly annoying, and as a foggy-headed academic a very bad fit for AB of C, but he has NEVER thought of himself as a druid.

    He was an honoree at an Eisteddfod, a Welsh festival of music and poetry which unfortunately has been cursed with a bunch of gimcrack fake “Druidic” fancy dress, due to the fantasies of its 18th century founder, Iolo Morganwg. His real name was Ed Williams, but it just doesn’t have that authentic Druidic ring to it . . .

    Anyhow, if you go to one of these things as an honored guest, they expect you to put on the silly get-up, which is what Dr. Williams did. It has nothing to do with any actual Druids, because nobody really knows much about what they did, or the self-anointed inheritors of the Druidic tradition, the Wiccans, who are even more recently organized than Morganwg’s outfit.

    I admit though that I have occasionally given in to the temptation to refer to Dr. Williams as “The Arch-Druid of Canterbury” . . . just because.

  28. Thank you, An American Mother, for your gentle correction of my asserting Dr. Williams bore the appellation of Druid. I just excised that reference from my copy of his Curriculum Vitae. I also appreciate your information on the genesis of how that confusion originated. So he went from “gimcrack fake “Druidic” fancy dress, due to the fantasies of its 18th century founder”, to “gimcrack fake “Roman Catholic” fancy dress, due to the fantasies of its 15th century founder”s, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Couldn’t he make the cut at Monty Python?

  29. ChadS says:

    MQ, I don’t think Williams is a loon. I believe the proper terminology is nutter. Anyhow, I keep hearing all this stuff about an Archbishop of Canterbury … I thought that See had been vacant going on 500 years now?

  30. ssoldie says:

    The Holy Father grants audiences to all who seek one from around the world. Now if they would all listen to him.

  31. Jane says:

    Sooner or later Roland will have to realise that he is on the wrong team.