The Holy See has been exceedingly patient in waiting for the Anglican communion to determine what it stands for, and has made clear that the innovations of female priests and same-sex marriage would be insuperable obstacles to reunion. In other words, to proceed with the standard ecumenical venture, Rome needed reassurances of two kinds: 1) that there existed an authoritative body that could authoritatively state what an Anglican must believe; 2) that the content of this belief would be recognizably connected with traditional Christian doctrine. In both respects the situation within Anglicanism has worsened with time, and indeed the rate of delamination is increasing. Standard ecumenism — what I call vegetarian lasagne ecumenism, an endless exchange of compliments between liberals — proved futile, and the spiritual needs of real human beings became acute enough that Rome decided it needed to act for the good of souls — a notion hard to grasp by most players in the ecumenism business and, it would seem, vexingly opaque to Williams.
I suspect there are serious conversations transpiring between RDW and Walter Kasper, especially if reports are accurate that this is a move that went over the head of the latter. If ecumenical discussion is predicated on a clear covenant — which had been stated by Kasper earlier, without a lot of press coverage it should be said — then maybe this will be the clarion call. Kasper did not endorse the idea of sub-provincial signing, if my memory is correct, but this was because he wanted provincial discipline of some kind. But the covenant is not set up according to black-letter RC canon law, so there needs to be a mechanism for sub-provincial covenanting. In addition, Kasper did not seem to understand how terribly incoherent the appeal to provinciality is by TEC in the first instance. These are exactly the sorts of discussions that need to be taking place and likely will, unless Kasper has been given some sort of directive from the Pope; RDW did not intimate that, when he spoke of ongoing ecumenical work. This new act, directed not at ‘+Iker anglo-catholics’ but anglicans who genuinely wish to convert to RC, appears to have been timed in respect of the women Bishop issue in the CoE. But it, and pressure from the GS, could make a strong section four something of a sine qua non. If this does not happen, the communion will collapse. Perhaps the timing of the Pope’s action will serve as ‘a rod of assyrian fury.’
An Anglican could also say that the Anglican Communion has been exceedingly patient with Rome’s insistence that Anglican orders are null and void, and that Rome’s refusal to acknowledge our orders and to even discuss the ordination of women are insuperable obstacles to reunion.
So, no one’s supposed to disagree with Rome, but Rome disagreement with Anglicans is our fault?
Re # 2
Dcreinken,
In any negotiation with Rome where the end objective is union or full communion, Rome’s doctrine is not up for negotiation. Rome may be accommodating in matters of church discipline depending on the exigent circumstances. But Rome is an all or nothing deal when it comes to dogma.
Once the Anglican Communion moved into theological territory that Rome concluded was beyond the point of recall to the catholic tradition then further discussions became pointless. The Pope’s decision to open the door to conservative Anglo-Catholics is a logical move and one which should be interpreted as a signal from Rome that they have given up on the Anglican Communion as a body and are moving on with those who share Rome’s moral and doctrinal outlook.
Although I am not Roman Catholic (been there and done that), I concur with their view of the situation and I believe that they are probably acting correctly given the circumstances.
In ICXC
John
So, John, just as we might have to convince Rome that A) our orders are valid, and b) that WO is a matter of discipline and not doctrine; Rome must convince us of things to.
The model of “church unity means going home to Rome” simply means that it will NEVER happen. Hearts and minds have to be changed for church unity, and that means hearts and minds on both sides of the Tiber.
Both Diogenes’ post and Dr. Seitz’ reply above are very informative. Leaving aside Diogenes’ sadly misguided culinary analogy of veggie lasagne to ecumenism – he hasn’t had my veggie lasagne, of which more later – he has said what needed saying, that the Anglican Communion appears in tatters about to become shreds, despite all the well-meaning efforts expended on its behalf. Comment #1 usefully maps out the incomplete picture Protestant Anglicans seem to have of an ecumenical effort with only one border crossing, at which Cardinal Kasper checks the documents. In fact the map has always been more complex than that with multiple border crossing points, and why some Anglicans have not realized there is traffic building up at a less well-known border crossing where the CDF apparently sit in the guard-booth, I just don’t know.
The acceptance of WO has always been a deal-breaker, always, and its direct consequence, the 2003 consecration of a non-celibate gay ‘bishop’ in TEC, has only made the cries of abandoned faithful Catholic Anglicans resound more loudly to potential rescuers. If Abp. Williams did not recognize that, he simply is not intelligent after all, no matter how people go on about his great giftedness. What the first comment made me consider is that Benedict XVI who is now in his mid-80s was professor during the early European campus conflagrations starting in the 1950s, and saw the impending chaos they sowed, whereas Abp. Williams now about age 60 was on campus in an age when the fruits of the Left’s movements were leading to romanticizing on campuses of its goals and even its means, and this is perhaps why it has fallen to this Pope to serve as the ‘rod of assyrian fury’, that might at last get this Abp. of Canterbury’s attention. I wonder if the Pope will have time in this life to sort out Tony Blair also……
dcreinken –
I spent the last couple of days reading Anglicans make precisely the points you make, and that fine. It makes sense for you to speak from the Anglican point of view. Would you deny Catholics our point of view?
Anyway, Anglican Orders and WO are hardly the only sticking points. For my money, the day the Catholic Church repudiates solemnly defined dogmas, it will have lost any claim to indefectability and won’t be worth joining (or staying in).
Re #4
Dcreinken
[blockquote] Hearts and minds have to be changed for church unity, and that means hearts and minds on both sides of the Tiber. [/blockquote]
Rome does not agree.
[blockquote] The model of “church unity means going home to Rome†simply means that it will NEVER happen.[/blockquote]
I think that’s probably a pretty fair statement. For the record I respect Rome’s position even as I reject many of their doctrinal innovations. Rome is consistent (even if I think occasionally wrong) and you know where they stand on things. I find that frankly rather refreshing in the modern world of “vegetarian lasagne ecumenism, an endless exchange of compliments between liberals.”
It also reaffirms my own very high degree of skepticism over the endless “dialogue” between Rome and Orthodoxy. I think it has gone on long enough and it’s time to admit we don’t agree and that’s not going to change. So lets work together where we can and go our separate ways when it is time to commune the Holy Mysteries of the altar.
I am not a fan of “ecumenism” for ecumenism’s sake. Once dialogue ceases to have a point then it’s time to move on. Rome has seen this and I say good for them. I just wish all the professional ecumenists in the Ecumenical Patriarchate would take a note here.
In ICXC
John
It’s certainly Rome’s prerogative to consider its dogmatic and doctrinal positions as absolutely non-negotiable, and in fact I would agree that given Roman ecclesiology they have little choice but to do just that.
However, the consequence of that is that they will very likely, in the end, find themselves talking to nobody but themselves.
In the case of this Apostolic Constitution, I don’t doubt for a moment that they’ll find many takers, both outside the Anglican Communion (the TAC, for one, obviously) and inside. But I also do not doubt that a great number of disaffected Anglo-Catholics will find that there are still one or two sticking points that prevent them from quite making the leap.
Myself, I would happily be Roman Catholic if only the Magisterium would come around to my point of view on certain key matters. The chance of that happening is roughly the same as that of a snowball buying a summer home in Hell, whilst simultaneously winning the lottery and being struck by lightning. So we are at an impasse, Rome and I, because I can be dogmatic too — I don’t want in on their terms, and they don’t want me on mine.
In truth, we’re probably both happier that way. However, it would be a little much for Rome to put all the blame for this impasse on my intransigence, which is essentially what they’re doing to the Anglican Communion as a whole right now. If I want to sell my house I’m certainly within my rights to set an asking price way above market value and refuse to negotiate by even a dollar; but if I then whine to my real estate agent about how inflexible all the buyers are being by not agreeing to my terms without exception, I’m not likely to get much sympathy.
I have no problem with Rome believing its points are non-negotiable – but I think it’s arrogant to go into a situation where the only acceptable outcome is that everyone agrees with you.
John – I see your points (and wrestle with them quite frequently, actually), but I believe that the minimal value of ongoing dialogue lies in making it more difficult to demonize one another. I’ve been at table with Cardinal (then Archbishop) Levada at several ARCUSA dialogues when he was Roman Co-chair and found him to be nothing but an intelligent and gracious man. Who knows, maybe these last 50 years of dialogue means that hearts and minds will change in 200 years rather than in 500. 🙂
For myself, I take great comfort in the 39 Articles admitting that the churches can and do err. Indefectability comes from Christ, not from any human effort – rather despite our human foibles. The genius of Anglicanism is that it admits it can be wrong. In the meantime, we keep moving on. That’s all anyone can do.
But don’t you know? Bonnie Anderson has officially repudiated the 39 Articles (see the next thread).
Re # 10
Br_er Rabbit,
So have I. But yea I can see the problem since she (presumably) claims to be Anglican.
In ICXC
John
Indefectability comes from Christ, not from any human effort – rather despite our human foibles.
Except that the 19th Article more or less denies that a church can be indefectible. So what assurance do you have that your own faith is true?
The Catholic Faith teaches that the papacy is the agency through which God, by his gracious gift, and not dependent on human effort, guards His Church from essential error. As I said, if that’s not true, why would you want to be Catholic? Anglicanism is a lovely religion; Anglicans are generally nicer people than Catholics. What’s better about one (possibly) false religion over another (possibly) false religion.
However, the consequence of that is that they will very likely, in the end, find themselves talking to nobody but themselves.
In the case of this Apostolic Constitution, I don’t doubt for a moment that they’ll find many takers, both outside the Anglican Communion (the TAC, for one, obviously) and inside.
I don’t suppose you see the contradiction between those two sentences, Ross? Personally, apart from the TAC, I don’t agree there will be that many takers for the reasons you cite. Anglo-catholics I’ve known are adamant against papal authority.
So you have your dogmas, Ross, and we have ours and we can be friendly neighbors without all this ecumenical angst. As I understand it, the protestant ethos is that each soul is responsible to God for his/her beliefs. So enjoy yours and leave us to ours. John is right: let’s cooperate where we can and seek God as we think right. As I said, Anglicanism is a nice religion. Enjoy it; have a nice life.
There are, of course, protestants with whom I can have a productive dialogue that clears up misconception and actually forges close fraternal bonds despite our disagreement. Others… not so much.
dcreinken, Rome didn’t “go into a situation…” Anglicans — lots of them — approached Rome. Rome has responded by opening the door… and very widely, too. No one has to come in, but they’re most welcome to do so.
#13, I’m referring to decades of ecumenical dialogue, not the Bishop of Rome’s current offer. Rome has made it very clear in the last 15 years or so that we have to agree with them in order to achieve full communion. Our position has been that the remaining disagreements don’t have to be church dividing.
Re: #4 and #14
dcreinken:
1:
[blockquote] Hearts and minds have to be changed for church unity, and that means hearts and minds on both sides of the Tiber. [/blockquote]
I agree, and would say that this development represents a significant change of heart and mind on the Roman side of the Tiber.
2:
When you speak of ecumenical dialogue, I know who is speaking for the Romans, but could you please tell me who can speak on behalf of Anglicans?
dc –
” Our position has been that the remaining disagreements don’t have to be church dividing. ”
The Vatican has concluded otherwise, and so has much of your own church, witness WO, VGR, SSB, need I go on? We wouldn’t be having this discussion now if your own positions weren’t so dividing in your own house…
Isn’t it interesting that the Pope’s new initiative was preceded, just a few days ago by the “U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops draft pastoral letter on marriage” titled “Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan.” Does anyone think this is a coincidence? I doubt it. These guys are nothing if not thorough. They lay the groundwork, they pour a foundation, they build with brick and mortar. The controversy in the Episcopal Church today is about marriage, friends, whether we know it or not. And whatever else the Pope’s initiative seeks to accomplish, at its root is is the core belief that marriage “reveals the plan of Christ’s love.” We are blessed to live in a time of strong leadership from the See of Peter.
Over the last decades of ecumenical dialogue, the Roman Church has travelled very long distances to be accommodating. Imagine, in the Malines conversations, if the reception of married clergy, use of a vernacular liturgy, communion in both kinds, bishops conferences and collegiality, acceptance of common baptism as a matter of course, free access to the scriptures in the vernacular, recognition of other christians as ‘separated brethren’ rather than damnable heretics (to name a few) had been agreed — let alone something like the personal ordinariate. It would have been considered a miracle.
In the same period, Anglicans have accepted contraception (and, in the case of TEC, abortion), ordained women, blessed homosexuality, made ecumenical deals with Lutherans and Mennonites, and apparently spread the borders of the faith so wide that they have disappeared.
Which side appears to have moved toward common ground, and which away from it?
When Rome, after many centuries, settles a doctrine, it is settled openly, clearly, and irrevocably. That’s something one can work with. With Anglicans, one can never know either if the doctrine is about to be tossed aside or if the particular Anglican with whom one is in dialogue speaks for anyone other than himself. How can one possibly enter into agreements with such a nebulous body?
Words Matter:
[blockquote] So what assurance do you have that your own faith is true? [/blockquote]
What assurance does anyone have that their faith is true? There are no scientificaly verifiable objective proofs for anyone’s faith. Isn’t that why it’s faith?
Rickk
[blockquote] I agree, and would say that this development represents a significant change of heart and mind on the Roman side of the Tiber. [/blockquote]
Not really – what’s changed since the JP2’s pastoral provision in the early ’80s? Oh yea, it now applies to groups as well as individuals, and creates some sort of Anglican clubhouse within the Roman system where (presumably) celibate seminarians get to study a little more Anglican history and liturgy than a Roman seminarian and folks get to use a Romanized Anglican liturgy with “thees” and “thous.”
[blockquote] When you speak of ecumenical dialogue, I know who is speaking for the Romans, but could you please tell me who can speak on behalf of Anglicans? [/blockquote]
One could also ask the same of Rome. Dialogues (nationally and internationally) frequently issued agreed statements and reports only to have the Vatican say “Uh, wait a minute . . .”
In practice, Lambeth Conference and the synods of individual provinces have generally been the place where ecumenical reports have been endorsed or challenged. For the most part, we’ve been able stand behind what we’ve put into the agreed statements (especially ARCIC 1)
Good reply, and I used “assurance” in a manner I don’t generally even approve. 🙂
What I meant to say is that no objective criteria for determining truth, if all Churches “hath erred”. To my viewpoint, if the Holy Spirit doesn’t guard the Church from essential error, then I might as well be floating in a “dead sea” or my own jealously guarded religious opinions.
BTW, the pastoral provision applied to groups more than individuals and the Book of Divine Worship is closer to the BCP ’79 (including a contemporary language option) than the Novus Ordo, although the BCP and NO are substantially alike in form, at least. A to “clubhouses”, shall we speak of the Ruthenian Clubhouse, the Melkite Clubhouse, or the Maronite Clubhouse?
Your animus towards the Catholic Church is duly noted, but you should try to get your facts straight if you want to make a case. As to the substance of your complaint – that the problem is intransigent Catholics – austin has put paid to that. The problem is the movement of Anglicanism into fragmentation and heresy.
I agree with Austin. Orthodoxy and Rome must be getting sick of shell-game ecumenism with the mainline Protestants. I mean, seriously, you start an ecumenical conversation, and literally within a year, yet another innovation creeps in that has to be dealt with. Look at the changing Episcopal landscape even over the last 10 years. It’s a series of ecumenical landmines. Why would Churches that a) believe in holding fast to their Traditions, and b) that can never accept mainline innovations, even enter into such talks? I think at this point, Rome and Orthodoxy are quite generous to even have talks with the mainlines. I believe in ecumenism, and emphasizing commonalities, but let’s face it, over the last 40 years basic theological and moral commonalities between Rome and the mainlines have decreased, and I think, like Austin says, it is mainline innovation that led to a lot of this.
#20 – I don’t have a particular animus towards the RCC. I accept their limitations (and I recognize we have limitations of our own). What I refuse to admit is that the Anglican Communion is somehow a lesser in comparison with the two, or that the “Rome is right, we are wrong.” I also don’t accept the glee over this offer that I see from those who have a particular animus towards Anglicans, or who delight in just selling newspapers (or increasing blog readership).
I think there’s more spin than substance because I basically think the offer doesn’t amount to very much in both practical and theological terms. It will help those most who are essentially Roman Catholic in heart and mind already, and that’s who it should help.
As for ecumenical dialogue – Yes, I certainly see why Rome is frustrated with us, and of course there is a disarray within Anglicanism right now that makes it difficult to see what’s going to emerge 10-20 years down the road. However, I don’t think that means ecumenical dialogue needs to end or is useless. Even ARCUSA still continues, discussing ethical matters, which should find areas of convergence and divergence. To the extent we are in agreement, we can do things together that provide a common witness in the larger world. To the extent we diverge, we are more aware of what needs to be overcome.
Dirk
I think some big points are being missed here
To see how Benedict views ECUMENICAL matters a nice review of this in order
ECUMENICAL PRAYER SERVICE
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
St. Joseph’s Parish, New York
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080418_incontro-ecumenico_en.html
The point of interest as to this discussion and how we hve go to this current state of affairs can be found in the paragraph that starts
italic “Too often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions….†italic
Give a big guess who he was talking in the room that day.
Two things are going on here. First yes he is giving Anglo Catholics a lifeline. I think he realizes in the main “Reform”groups that Anglo Cathlolics might not be that welcomed. I saw a lot of Anglo Catholic Priest blogs after the GAFCOM thing raise concerns
The Pope of course cares about the Anglo Catholics but he feels for the Orthodox Evangelical Branch and Reformed groups. Hey they might think the Papacy and all this Mary Stuff is a much of Poppycock but at least they are not ignoring 99 percent of the Nicene Creed and Christian tradition and scripture.
The Pope’s move gives these Reformed, Evangelical and Anglo Catholics that will not come to Rome a huge trump card. It has empowered their position.
I see no way that the Archbishop of Canterbury will not give the go ahead and blessing for an alternative Anglican Province in the United States for the remaining Anglo Catholics and the Orthodox Protestants. A plan we know the VATICAN VERY MUCH ENDORSES!! This seems to be all missed by some but I think it will become apparent soon enough.
dcreinken:
Re: #19
How do you square what you said:
[blockquote]In practice, Lambeth Conference and the synods of individual provinces have generally been the place where ecumenical reports have been endorsed or challenged. For the most part, we’ve been able stand behind what we’ve put into the agreed statements (especially ARCIC 1)[/blockquote]
With this from the Archbishop of Canterbury:
[blockquote]The Apostolic Constitution is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic Church and the Anglican tradition. Without the dialogues of the past forty years, this recognition would not have been possible, nor would hopes for full visible unity have been nurtured. In this sense, this Apostolic Constitution is one consequence of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
Can you now ‘stand behind’ this fruit of forty years of dialogue? Certainly, it does not mean that you must submit to its demands, but don’t you at least need to charitably acknowledge that this fruit is an answer to the prayer of Romans and Anglicans who have been working together for reunion? I mean, this is the point of all that dialogue isn’t it? Or do you mean something different by the terms ‘ecumenical’ and ‘dialogue’?
[b]TACit[/b], at comment [b]5[/b], wrote [blockquote]Benedict XVI … was professor during the early European campus conflagrations starting in the 1950s, and saw the impending chaos they sowed, whereas Abp. Williams … was on campus in an age when the fruits of the Left’s movements were leading to romanticizing on campuses of its goals and even its means.[/blockquote] Perhaps that also explains why +Cantuar always strikes me as someone who, to judge by appearances, was never introduced to the concept of the [i]tonsorial operation[/i].
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
It is truly amazing to me just how many of us think that we are each, as individuals, “inoculated” against error by the Holy Spirit. To the extent of presuming to believe that we can individually and in less than one’s own lifetime, sit in judgment against the [i]magisterium[/i] of the Church. It was the realization of that attitude, which I can only call a flaw, in myself, a sudden understanding (literally [i]instantaneous[/i] and non-verbal), which led me last year to renounce my membership in the Episcopal Church and seek union with the See of Peter. I have never been more at peace in my 64 years.
The possible boon that I see for myself in this development, is that my wife of 29 years (a cradle Episcopalian), who now attends my Catholic parish and sings in the choir with me, has an abiding sadness at her loss of the liturgical, linguistic and musical patrimony of Anglicanism that is only partly assuaged by the presence in our Dominican parish of a Director of Liturgy and Music who loves Anglican sacred music. Her sadness would be completely assuaged were an Anglican Use Mass to become available to us on a regular basis, even if not every week.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
2. dcreinken wrote:
[blockquote]An Anglican could also say that the Anglican Communion has been exceedingly patient with Rome’s insistence that Anglican orders are null and void, and that Rome’s refusal to acknowledge our orders and to even discuss the ordination of women are insuperable obstacles to reunion.
So, no one’s supposed to disagree with Rome, but Rome disagreement with Anglicans is our fault? [/blockquote]
Hmmm… at least with regards to WO and “gay marriage” Rome has behind it centuries of teaching and practice from the age of the apostles to the present…and Anglicanism has a couple of groovy ideas from the ’60’s.
This is hardly an equal footing. And given the implications of these differences, there isn’t much basis for comparing the heft of Anglican theology against the apostolic nature of Roman authority.
#24, RickK
I’m sorry – I don’t see where the two quotes are in conflict. I state that for the most part, we’ve been able to stand behind the agreed statements (especially ARCIC 1). You quote Abp Williams as saying we have substantial overlap and agreement. Where’s the conflict? I’ve also not spoken or written against the pope’s offer. Nor does our agreements in our ecumenical dialogues mean that we don’t have disagreements, too. I guess I’m just not understanding your question.
#27 – WO isn’t a groovy idea from the ’60s (witness Li Tim Oi in the ’40s, and even earlier discussions about deaconesses vs. deacons). Also the Pontifical Institute for Biblical Studies stated in the 1970s that Scripture was neutral on the issue of WO – which was the same position as the Anglicans in the 1960s.
Nothing is irrevocable. Anglicans COULD in fact decide to no longer ordain women. Rome COULD in fact “reach a new understanding” (a phrase a Jesuit on the dialogue told me Rome often uses) that WO is permissable. Whether either will happen, who knows.
Nothing is irrevocable.
And there you have the perfect distinction between Catholic/Orthodox and protestant/Anglican.
Such “openness” however, has led not only to innovations such as WO, and the sanctification of same-sex relationships, but also weakening of theological positions: the uniqueness of Christ comes to mind, but also the doctrines of a Spong (himself just a popularizer of J.A.T. Robinson) , which are the endpoint of a road which begins with “Nothing is irrevocable”.
Not the Lordship of Jesus,
Not the Fatherhood of God,
Not the Creeds
Nothing.
Except power, of course, and those with the will to exercise it.
Re # 29
Words Matter,
Amen.
Truth is neither subjective nor subject to majority rule. The Ten Commandments are not open to a popular referendum. Some things are black and white. There is such a thing as Orthodoxy and that which is outside it is heresy.
ICXC NIKA
John