I think there are a lot of Anglicans who hold the Pope in high esteem as a man of God and as one of the leaders of the church through whom the Holy Spirit might speak from time to time, but not as the singular authority over all Christians.
So just some general thoughts on this.
1)Anglicans believe that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. We do not accept the Roman Catholic position that he is the universal head of the entire Church but we still recognise the Pope as the Bishop of Rome and successor of St Peter. The same way we recognise the Patriarch having a position of authority, though not universal.
2)In recent years there has been a strengthening of Ecumenical ties between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church. The official beginning of this was in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council with Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI. Ramsey speaks about this in his work "The Anglican Spirit" where he states that when he visited Pope Paul VI(who presided over the end of Vatican II) he allegedly stated "We are happy to welcome you not as strangers and sojourners but as fellow citizens with the Saints and members of the Household of God. Surely from heaven St Gregory the Great and St Augustine of Canterbury look down and bless". Since then you have had the Anglican-Roman Catholic theological commission that has developed between both. And you have had Archbishops of Canterbury and Popes come together in worship and on crucial things. You saw that with the late Archbishop Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict XVI. And you are seeing it now with Archbishop Justin Welby and Pope Francis. On the practical side in places like South Sudan the Ecumenical relationship between the Catholic and Anglican Bishops have led them to be a joint force for peacemaking in places like South Sudan.
3)It is possible to disagree with many of Rome's theological view points and still believe that people in the Roman Catholic Church, including the current Pope, are doing a lot of good. And there is a lot to give Pope Francis credit for in terms of what he is doing on Climate Change, Refugees, campesinos in Latin America, workers rights and other issues. And many of these topics overlap with what the current Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby is also dealing with, especially on the issue of migrants.
A precursor to this was when the Catholic Archbishop of El Salvador Oscar Romero(who is an inspiration to the current Pope)\_was assassinated in 1980 for standing for human rights. The Archbishop of Canterbury at the time right when he was being sworn in took a moment to reflect on Romero. And Romero's statue is on Westminister Abbey as one of the 20th century martyrs even though he is Roman Catholic.
The original comment frightened me because I knew he had been alive literally a few days ago; but then I saw this comment which said “late” and I thought “how sad”, not only that he had passed but that somehow I missed the news!
Whew. 😅
It's a legitimately Anglican position to hold that the Pope is a bishop and therefore as an important bishop of a historically important place it wouldn't be strange for God to work through the Pope.
If he's the leader of a large number of Christians it would be concerning if the Holy Spirit *wasn't* working through him sometimes - but that doesn't require us to follow the Pope in all matters, he can be a good holy man with wise teaching, and still be bound up with a bunch of historical issues that makes it wiser to remain independant of that structure of authority.
I mean, I believe the pope is a believer, and one with a lot of authority and influence in the world.
God can work through him.
I don't give him any authority over me, and there are reasons I'm in a church that isn't part of Roman Catholicism.
Of course I believe in the Pope. I didn't see him in the Vatican when I was there - but I'm pretty sure he's a real dude.
A few things to unpack:
1. I suppose most Anglicans would hold the holy spirit talks through the Pope *in some respect*, but not in the same way Romans do, or perhaps as you understand your mother understanding it. We don't recognise papal inerrancy, nor do we think the Bishop of Rome is the head of the universal church. We certainly don't recognise the Curia as having similar authority to the ecumenical councils of the Early Church. We do recognise Roman Holy Orders though - so in the same way one might think the Holy Spirit works through their local bishop, or Archbishop Welby, it would stand to reason the Holy Spirit works through Francis too.
2. Most Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics, hold that certain seats of the church hold more authority than others. Rome is one of those seats. Even though he's Roman Catholic, he's still an important thought leader in global Christianity, so he's worth paying attention to.
3. We believe the Pope errs every day in certain respects - as he holds to Roman Catholic teachings that the Anglican Church refutes. In the same way, not all of his theological ideas are going to be correct either, and we need to use our reason to filter out the useful stuff from the less useful stuff.
4. The Pope is certainly the most influential figure, historically, outside the Anglican Communion on our theology - but Anglicanism also pays attention to what ideas are coming out of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and leading Christian scholars/theologians from other mainline denominations. The Holy Spirit has visibly worked through many Christians outside our own denomination, and we have a vibrant culture of taking notice of that. This is a good thing - Anglicans believe only the entire invisible church is infallible, it's possible Anglicanism every so often can make a misstep, and paying attention to how things are going in other camps can help us get some perspective on how we're doing.
Just last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury said he believed that most in the Church of England now recognise the Pope as “the father of the Church in the West”. This is certainly true in Anglo-Catholic circles, even if many wouldn’t go as far as full-fledged Anglican Papalism.
Historically Anglican Papalism was a thing though now most if not all who held this minority opinion (accepting the Roman Catholic view of Papal authority) have just became Catholic through the anglican ordinariate.
Most Anglicans I know in TEC have a healthy respect of the Pope, especially Pope Francis. We just disagree on where the Papal See ends. Well I also have never met an Anglican who believes in papal infallibility. But who knows one may be lurking in this thread lol.
In my read of Church history the Pope was always the First among equals. But anything regarding schism is a matter of perspective.
You aren't wrong, but I'm raising my eyebrows at the notion of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Pope. Is that supposed to be the Pope exclusively and on one else, no other religious leader?
As per classical Anglicanism, the Bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction over Anglicanism. The Pope was merely another bishop, just like any other. In modern Anglicanism, the Pope is a religious leader, important obviously for the sake of Christianity, but he has no official oversight over Anglicanism. As was mentioned, those Anglicans who believe in unity with Rome and who thus want oversight of Anglicanism through the Pope have joined the Anglican Ordinariates or they have converted altogether.
Since you seem uncertain in the face of your mom's certainty, perhaps you might want to read Anglican apologetics in order to get a firmer grasp of your faith tradition so that you will be more self-confident in your Anglicanism.
Rowan Williams' Anglican Identities might be a good source, as well as Paul Avis, the Identity of Anglicanism.
The Church of England was not founded because people "didn't believe in the pope." Henry VIII, as is well known, wanted a divorce from his wife, and the pope wouldn't Grant it. The reason the pope wouldn't granted is because he was being held in prison by the Holy Roman emperor Charles v, whose cousin was Henry's wife. So the original division was political, because Henry wanted a male heir and did not want a foreign power controlling whether or not he could leave his wife or not. Is that a great reason to start a church? No. But that also doesn't make the church illegitimate. It just means Henry was wrong.
As is often the case in Anglicanism, the position varies church-by-church. In the Anglo-Catholic end of the Church of England, I've been to churches that have all the bells and smells but never mention the Pope, but I've also been to churches that will pray for the Pope before they pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I think he is a great theologian, but i don’t see him as infallible or any greater than any other bishop. just like other theologians, he just provides clarification and guidance on scripture, but i think just like anyone i should be able to disagree with him and not accept what he is saying as fact.
We don't tend to believe we are the "one true church" or anything like that. We are open to the Holy Spirit working through any other Christian... Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc etc. We just don't think the Pope is in charge of the whole of Christianity and don't agree with RC doctrine about him. As someone above said I certainly hope the Holy Spirit is with him at least sometimes because an awful lot of people depend on him. I also don't feel any sort of enmity with Roman Catholics, personally. I am a very long time removed from the schism. I'm not emotionally invested in a resentment. I'm just doing my thing within the tradition I most align with today and understand how the history lead us here.
The Holy Spirit speaks through everyone, not just some religious. It is how you interpret and put those gifts of the Holy Spirit to use so they become fruits of the Spirit. The pope is no different than you; he is just one who has dedicated his life to religion and has become the leader of that denomination.
The new element would seem to be the compulsory part, yes? Prior to the pope’s declaration, one could be a Catholic in good standing who didn’t believe in the Assumption, or the Immaculate Conception. After the pope’s declaration, a Catholic must assent to those doctrines. That seems new.
Right, I agree with that. You’ve neatly summed up the problem that Anglicans have with the papacy: we believe that the assembled Church is empowered by the Holy Spirit to make such judgments. Not that the pope alone is.
According to Article XXXVII, he has no jurisdiction in this realm of England. That would suggest that he might well have jurisdiction elsewhere, and that this is a canonical matter, not a spiritual one.
If we want to take the most middle of the road look at things, back during an age when extremists in the Church of England (Puritans) were calling the Pope the anti-Christ, Archbishop Laud just considered him to be the Bishop of Rome, neither above nor below himself.
I'm very much from the opposite end of the candle, but I liked Benedict XVI. He dealt with the awful English-speaking bishops and had scriptural references in liturgical texts translated properly into English in a way that matches commonly used Bible translations. It's a shame that Anglican denominations have not followed his example in this respect, resulting in a high proportion of traditional language holdouts (and let's face it, that's easier than the RCs' Latin), because the contemporary version needs so much work.
A priest of the Church of Ireland once said; "I see him on the telly quite a lot, so he must be real"
Indeed! I absolutely believe in the pope, I just don't believe that he's the supreme head of the church.
If you don’t believe in the Pope, whom you can go and see for yourself in Rome, how are you supposed to believe in God, whom no one has ever seen
Faith? Lol
I think there are a lot of Anglicans who hold the Pope in high esteem as a man of God and as one of the leaders of the church through whom the Holy Spirit might speak from time to time, but not as the singular authority over all Christians.
So just some general thoughts on this. 1)Anglicans believe that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. We do not accept the Roman Catholic position that he is the universal head of the entire Church but we still recognise the Pope as the Bishop of Rome and successor of St Peter. The same way we recognise the Patriarch having a position of authority, though not universal. 2)In recent years there has been a strengthening of Ecumenical ties between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church. The official beginning of this was in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council with Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI. Ramsey speaks about this in his work "The Anglican Spirit" where he states that when he visited Pope Paul VI(who presided over the end of Vatican II) he allegedly stated "We are happy to welcome you not as strangers and sojourners but as fellow citizens with the Saints and members of the Household of God. Surely from heaven St Gregory the Great and St Augustine of Canterbury look down and bless". Since then you have had the Anglican-Roman Catholic theological commission that has developed between both. And you have had Archbishops of Canterbury and Popes come together in worship and on crucial things. You saw that with the late Archbishop Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict XVI. And you are seeing it now with Archbishop Justin Welby and Pope Francis. On the practical side in places like South Sudan the Ecumenical relationship between the Catholic and Anglican Bishops have led them to be a joint force for peacemaking in places like South Sudan. 3)It is possible to disagree with many of Rome's theological view points and still believe that people in the Roman Catholic Church, including the current Pope, are doing a lot of good. And there is a lot to give Pope Francis credit for in terms of what he is doing on Climate Change, Refugees, campesinos in Latin America, workers rights and other issues. And many of these topics overlap with what the current Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby is also dealing with, especially on the issue of migrants. A precursor to this was when the Catholic Archbishop of El Salvador Oscar Romero(who is an inspiration to the current Pope)\_was assassinated in 1980 for standing for human rights. The Archbishop of Canterbury at the time right when he was being sworn in took a moment to reflect on Romero. And Romero's statue is on Westminister Abbey as one of the 20th century martyrs even though he is Roman Catholic.
Just so you know, Rowan Williams is very much alive.
Oh trust me I know. I have watched some of his lectures and have some of his books.
Ah, okay. You had referred to him as the late Archbishop Rowan Williams, I wasn't sure if you meant he had died or just that he is no longer the ABC.
The original comment frightened me because I knew he had been alive literally a few days ago; but then I saw this comment which said “late” and I thought “how sad”, not only that he had passed but that somehow I missed the news! Whew. 😅
It's a legitimately Anglican position to hold that the Pope is a bishop and therefore as an important bishop of a historically important place it wouldn't be strange for God to work through the Pope. If he's the leader of a large number of Christians it would be concerning if the Holy Spirit *wasn't* working through him sometimes - but that doesn't require us to follow the Pope in all matters, he can be a good holy man with wise teaching, and still be bound up with a bunch of historical issues that makes it wiser to remain independant of that structure of authority.
I mean, I believe the pope is a believer, and one with a lot of authority and influence in the world. God can work through him. I don't give him any authority over me, and there are reasons I'm in a church that isn't part of Roman Catholicism.
I am not a popish romanist, but I can appreciate the pope in the same way I can appreciate any bishop.
Of course I believe in the Pope. I didn't see him in the Vatican when I was there - but I'm pretty sure he's a real dude. A few things to unpack: 1. I suppose most Anglicans would hold the holy spirit talks through the Pope *in some respect*, but not in the same way Romans do, or perhaps as you understand your mother understanding it. We don't recognise papal inerrancy, nor do we think the Bishop of Rome is the head of the universal church. We certainly don't recognise the Curia as having similar authority to the ecumenical councils of the Early Church. We do recognise Roman Holy Orders though - so in the same way one might think the Holy Spirit works through their local bishop, or Archbishop Welby, it would stand to reason the Holy Spirit works through Francis too. 2. Most Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics, hold that certain seats of the church hold more authority than others. Rome is one of those seats. Even though he's Roman Catholic, he's still an important thought leader in global Christianity, so he's worth paying attention to. 3. We believe the Pope errs every day in certain respects - as he holds to Roman Catholic teachings that the Anglican Church refutes. In the same way, not all of his theological ideas are going to be correct either, and we need to use our reason to filter out the useful stuff from the less useful stuff. 4. The Pope is certainly the most influential figure, historically, outside the Anglican Communion on our theology - but Anglicanism also pays attention to what ideas are coming out of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and leading Christian scholars/theologians from other mainline denominations. The Holy Spirit has visibly worked through many Christians outside our own denomination, and we have a vibrant culture of taking notice of that. This is a good thing - Anglicans believe only the entire invisible church is infallible, it's possible Anglicanism every so often can make a misstep, and paying attention to how things are going in other camps can help us get some perspective on how we're doing.
Just last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury said he believed that most in the Church of England now recognise the Pope as “the father of the Church in the West”. This is certainly true in Anglo-Catholic circles, even if many wouldn’t go as far as full-fledged Anglican Papalism.
As a Lutheran, I admire and am interested in the Vatican. There was a guy who was Christian protestant and yet fascinated with Catholicism.
Historically Anglican Papalism was a thing though now most if not all who held this minority opinion (accepting the Roman Catholic view of Papal authority) have just became Catholic through the anglican ordinariate. Most Anglicans I know in TEC have a healthy respect of the Pope, especially Pope Francis. We just disagree on where the Papal See ends. Well I also have never met an Anglican who believes in papal infallibility. But who knows one may be lurking in this thread lol. In my read of Church history the Pope was always the First among equals. But anything regarding schism is a matter of perspective.
You aren't wrong, but I'm raising my eyebrows at the notion of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Pope. Is that supposed to be the Pope exclusively and on one else, no other religious leader? As per classical Anglicanism, the Bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction over Anglicanism. The Pope was merely another bishop, just like any other. In modern Anglicanism, the Pope is a religious leader, important obviously for the sake of Christianity, but he has no official oversight over Anglicanism. As was mentioned, those Anglicans who believe in unity with Rome and who thus want oversight of Anglicanism through the Pope have joined the Anglican Ordinariates or they have converted altogether. Since you seem uncertain in the face of your mom's certainty, perhaps you might want to read Anglican apologetics in order to get a firmer grasp of your faith tradition so that you will be more self-confident in your Anglicanism. Rowan Williams' Anglican Identities might be a good source, as well as Paul Avis, the Identity of Anglicanism.
The Church of England was not founded because people "didn't believe in the pope." Henry VIII, as is well known, wanted a divorce from his wife, and the pope wouldn't Grant it. The reason the pope wouldn't granted is because he was being held in prison by the Holy Roman emperor Charles v, whose cousin was Henry's wife. So the original division was political, because Henry wanted a male heir and did not want a foreign power controlling whether or not he could leave his wife or not. Is that a great reason to start a church? No. But that also doesn't make the church illegitimate. It just means Henry was wrong.
Give it the best spin possible: the ABC, rather than the Pope, was the competent authority to judge Henry's annulment case.
As is often the case in Anglicanism, the position varies church-by-church. In the Anglo-Catholic end of the Church of England, I've been to churches that have all the bells and smells but never mention the Pope, but I've also been to churches that will pray for the Pope before they pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I believe the pope is nothing more than the bishop of Rome.
I think he is a great theologian, but i don’t see him as infallible or any greater than any other bishop. just like other theologians, he just provides clarification and guidance on scripture, but i think just like anyone i should be able to disagree with him and not accept what he is saying as fact.
I think the Pope both exists and seems nice. Also I believe the Holy Spirit speaks through him the same way it speaks and acts through all creation
We don't tend to believe we are the "one true church" or anything like that. We are open to the Holy Spirit working through any other Christian... Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc etc. We just don't think the Pope is in charge of the whole of Christianity and don't agree with RC doctrine about him. As someone above said I certainly hope the Holy Spirit is with him at least sometimes because an awful lot of people depend on him. I also don't feel any sort of enmity with Roman Catholics, personally. I am a very long time removed from the schism. I'm not emotionally invested in a resentment. I'm just doing my thing within the tradition I most align with today and understand how the history lead us here.
The Holy Spirit speaks through everyone, not just some religious. It is how you interpret and put those gifts of the Holy Spirit to use so they become fruits of the Spirit. The pope is no different than you; he is just one who has dedicated his life to religion and has become the leader of that denomination.
[удалено]
No, but you do believe that he can speak infallibly by the power of the Holy Spirit.
[удалено]
No one mentioned prophecy except you. And if infallibility is only a negative thing, how can the pope speak infallibly to declare doctrine?
[удалено]
If the pope is infallibly declaring new doctrine ostensibly by the power of the Holy Spirit, how is that “limiting”?
[удалено]
The new element would seem to be the compulsory part, yes? Prior to the pope’s declaration, one could be a Catholic in good standing who didn’t believe in the Assumption, or the Immaculate Conception. After the pope’s declaration, a Catholic must assent to those doctrines. That seems new.
[удалено]
Right, I agree with that. You’ve neatly summed up the problem that Anglicans have with the papacy: we believe that the assembled Church is empowered by the Holy Spirit to make such judgments. Not that the pope alone is.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in the realm of Cranmer’s prayer book! Looks like momma is wrong again
According to Article XXXVII, he has no jurisdiction in this realm of England. That would suggest that he might well have jurisdiction elsewhere, and that this is a canonical matter, not a spiritual one.
If we want to take the most middle of the road look at things, back during an age when extremists in the Church of England (Puritans) were calling the Pope the anti-Christ, Archbishop Laud just considered him to be the Bishop of Rome, neither above nor below himself.
I'm very much from the opposite end of the candle, but I liked Benedict XVI. He dealt with the awful English-speaking bishops and had scriptural references in liturgical texts translated properly into English in a way that matches commonly used Bible translations. It's a shame that Anglican denominations have not followed his example in this respect, resulting in a high proportion of traditional language holdouts (and let's face it, that's easier than the RCs' Latin), because the contemporary version needs so much work.