Invoking Gregory and Bede
Today was a historic day. Not only did Pope Benedict address Members of Parliament and civic and cultural leaders in the very hall where Thomas More’s trial took place, he also celebrated Vespers with the Archbishop of Canterbury in Westminster Abbey. Those who were able to watch both events saw the magnificence of the settings.
In his address at the Vespers Service, Archbishop Williams invoked Pope Saint Gregory the Great. He said in part:
For Christians of all traditions and confessions, St Gregory is a figure of compelling attractiveness and spiritual authority – pastor and leader, scholar and exegete and spiritual guide. The fact that the first preaching of the Gospel to the English peoples in the sixth and seventh centuries has its origins in his vision creates a special connection for us with the See of the Apostles Peter and Paul; and Gregory’s witness and legacy remain an immensely fruitful source of inspiration for our own mission in these dramatically different times.
The rest of his reflection is here.
Pope Benedict concluded his own remarks by invoking the great English saint and scholar, Bede the Venerable:
Gathered in this ancient monastic church, we can recall the example of a great Englishman and churchman whom we honour in common: Saint Bede the Venerable. At the dawn of a new age in the life of society and of the Church, Bede understood both the importance of fidelity to the word of God as transmitted by the apostolic tradition, and the need for creative openness to new developments and to the demands of a sound implantation of the Gospel in contemporary language and culture.
This nation, and the Europe which Bede and his contemporaries helped to build, once again stands at the threshold of a new age. May Saint Bede’s example inspire the Christians of these lands to rediscover their shared legacy, to strengthen what they have in common, and to continue their efforts to grow in friendship. May the Risen Lord strengthen our efforts to mend the ruptures of the past and to meet the challenges of the present with hope in the future which, in his providence, he holds out to us and to our world. Amen.
The Pope’s full text is here.
I think John Allen is right that bXVI has come with his positive orthodopxy shining out.
This clearly leads to touching occasions.
I found it interesting that Rown emphasized the authority of service building up men and women to full maturity in Christ while Benedict underscored obedience to the faith (as understood).
And therein lies a tension ahead.
I thought of fr. Kavanaugh’s piece in America. “How Will They Know?”
when the lovely words positively spoken are put into practices and policies and will they reflect to the faithful and to all Christians the love/charity Benedict has written about.
Readers of this blog will know that I have great regard for the theological insight and spiritual depth of Archbishop Williams. It was a distinct pleasure to hear him say the following in his address to Pope Benedict at Evening Prayer:
“In a series of profound and eloquent encyclicals, you have explored these themes for our day, grounding everything in the eternal love of the Holy Trinity, challenging us to hope both for this world and the next, and analysing the ways in which our economic habits have trapped us in a reductive and unworthy style of human living. In this building with its long Benedictine legacy, we acknowledge with gratitude your contribution to a Benedictine vision for our days, and pray that your time with us in Britain may help us all towards a renewal of the hope and energy we need as Christians to witness to our conviction that in their relation to God men and women may grow into the fullest freedom and beauty of spirit.”
Hey Father Bob and Bob. I am less than touched. Your God is divisive.
Your God is divisive.
A sign of contradiction? Yes.
Divisive? No.
Contradictions in matters of God are indeed divisive. No?
Bender is a mole. Sorry for responding to him.
I think it’s interesting that St. Bede himself was the beneficiary of Bishop Aidan, who was not a Roman Catholic, the great evangelizer in Northumbria, who founded Lindisfarne, Bede’s monastery, and, with his friend, St. Hilda, established some of the leading centers of learning in Europe.
Bede writes about the errors of the Celtic Catholics in his “Historia,” but gives Aidan his due.
I also think it’s interesting that Aidan was declared a saint by popular acclaim–and remained one in the Roman Catholic Church despite his errors–perhaps because of Bede’s testimony.
I think it is wonderful that Newman is recognized for his holy life by the Roman Catholic Church. But people know a saint when they see one, and, like St. Aidan, it was his own people who saw it first. You could look at the beatification as Rome’s rather late agreement with Canterbury about the holiness of Newman.
I don’t think it is cynical to draw attention to the reality that these two men are dressed in royal splendor and in truth live like billionaires or at least multimillionaires. Both of them live in sumptuous settings and never had to pay rent, make a mortgage payment or worry about health care. The commentators on EWTN are funded by millionaire people who for the most part are anti-poor and downtrodden. So maybe it is a good thing that these two do not unite. It at least shows that their “unholiness” keeps much good from being done and that they are wrong manytimes in crucial areas. Jesus was identified by fulfilling the words of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” This prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus. It is far from clear that it is fulfilled in Rowan or Benedict.
They both seem very gracious towards each other. How thoughtful of Archbishop Williams to quote a pope of the past, and of Pope Benedict to quote an Englishman of the past. I am struck by the parallel in style. The tone is one of general goodwill.
At the same time, it is not very informative. It’s a polite exchange between two persons who, as Bill M. pointed out, seem extremely remote from everybody’s lives. I do not see much to be gained from our listening to their civilities.
Claire –
Given the history between Rome and England), civility is a sign of great progress. Their civility itself is a great lesson: it shows it is possible to be courteous to those who disagree fundamentally with us about important matters. The American share of the internet needs that lesson desperately.
Ann, where do the Anglicans “disagree fundamentally with us about important matters”?
Nothing in Anglican theology rejects core Catholic beliefs about Christ, the eucharist, the assumption of the BVM (an infallible teaching), or much of anything else that I can see, except for the existence of Purgatory.
Interesting that the Anglicans already celebrate Newman’s Feastday. Also, Oscar Romero’s day is March 24. http://thewoundedbird.blogspot.com/2010/03/feast-of-oscar-romero.html
Jean –
Catholics believe that the successors of Peter have a special place among the bishops with function(s)/power(s) that the other bishpps do not have. (I’m pretty liberal in some ways, but I’m one of the ones who think this is true.) This is what caused the break between Rome and the English Church. Although (or so I’ve read), some Anglicans are do grant the “primacy of Peter” the meaning of that is a great sticking point.
There is also the question of Holy Orders, which, as my poor theology tells me, is *either* a question of
1) the apostolic powers of bishops to ordain, or 2) it was a question of just what ordination did, and this was dependent on just what the English bishops (or at least some of the English bishop) thought happens at the Consecration. Some popes thought that at least some of the English bishops did not have a true concept of the Real Presence so he concluded they could not intend what Rome intends by the ordination rites. This made those particular ordinations invalid. (You’d best ask the theologians about this :-)
Ann, the Episcopal Church (and all Anglican churches) are episcopal–only bishops can make priests; only priests may officiate at the eucharist. It is true that Anglicans view the powers invested in the Pope quite differently.
The Real Presence is a sticking point. Anglicans believe in the Real Presence, but they are allowed to stop short of believing in transubstantiation. That is, you receive Christ truly and in a real way when you consume the bread and wine. But you need not believe that the elements “turn into” the body and blood of Christ in a literal sense, but many Anglicans DO understand the eucharist this way.
In any case, Anglican notions about the eucharist are far different from denominations in which the communion is merely a “commemoration.”
I offer these observations merely in support of yours, not to re-fight the English Reformation, which I think was handled very badly by the Powers That Be on both sides at the time.
Bill, I don’t know whose blog you are looking at, but you can look at the many versions of the BCP used in various Anglican National Churches from this page:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/
You will see that the Kalendars do vary, and tend to include the names of holy individuals who might mean most to worshippers within that country. It is not intended to imply that other names should be excluded.
So, while Catholics may perceive snubs in the date the Vatican selected to celebrate Newman, I don’t know any Anglicans whose noses are out of joint, because they don’t all honor the same individuals on their Kalendars, nor do they all have the same dates for all those individuals they have in common.
Most of my Episcopalian friends see the recognition of Newman by the RCC as a a good and nice thing. And that’s about it.
Jean –
Yes, that’s what I was pretty much taught about Episcopalians. But I don’t know much Protestant theology either. Sigh.
About the species being Jesus’ body but maybe not, I think this illustrates the emphasis that Roman Catholics generally put on corporeality, both of Jesus’ presence among us and of the bodily resurrection of people as well. And that whole business of relics was, I think, an expression of the attachment to body by Catholic. (I personally find just the idea of body-part relics to be repulsive.)
Maybe one thing that distinguisnes the RCC is that it includes so many extremes. Sometimes I even have some sympathy for the Popes who have been faced with so much looniness at times. Ah well.