A Catholic journalist has suggested that the name of the “personal ordinariate” in England and Wales may be linked to John Henry Newman, a famous former Anglican priest and theologian whose beatification is expected in 2010 when Pope Benedict XVI visits England. Other reactions have been very mixed: from many Anglicans of anger and from some atheists of protection and protest. Perhaps the atheists in England deep down are Protestant atheists?
The long term consequences of this announcement are difficult to see at the moment, but the achievements of the dialogical approach of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) and of the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) need to be safeguarded. The profoundly reconciling legacy in Liverpool and England of the friendship between Bishop David Sheppard and Archbishop Derek Worlock needs remembering and developing.
It may well be that the number of Anglican Catholic bishops and other clergy in England who take this up is likely to be low, and the number of congregations in England will be even lower.
There is more from Dr Kings in the longer version of this Guardian article here which is worth reading in full:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=483
It raises such bitter sweet emotions….how wonderful that the Vatican is able to be so generous but what a shameful reflection of the Church of England that the pope so easily offers what the General Synod has continually refused us- an honoured, ecclesial space in which to live out faith as we sincerely believe God to be calling us to.
Here in the US as well, just substitute “Episcopal Church” and “General Convention.”
The thing that strikes me as so sad about this is that the COE bishops have been repeatedly unable to say clearly that they actually want the Anglo Catholics to be “part of the family”. It’s like someone on the brink of a divorce saying to their wife, “You know you’ll have to give up this beautiful house, and your new life won’t be quite the same as our old life…” instead of saying “You do know I really love you”.
A bit more of the sheep that was lost and a bit less of the “you’ll never keep the Rectory” would at least be edifying.
Now to hear from the revision committee.
After that, perhaps, to consider what the Church of England will be, without the Anglo-Catholics.
As to Brer’s consideration I guess that it will be a little messy-
a) some Anglo-Catholics will stay because they have compromised lives sexually or in their married past
b) the liberals will nosily claim to be Catholic despite the fact that they manifestly are not.
So we will have a smaller more compromised wing of conservative Catholicism mixed with a large vague and liberal one. Ironically the winners might not be the liberals long term but the evangelicals, who having much money and people and freed from a Catholic balance might move in a more protestant direction- a la the Diocese of Sydney. What is certain is that this is a historical turning point and authentic Anglo-Catholicism will never look the same again.
For some their bluff will have been called and they will need to become more obviusly Anglican. For others it is the point of departure however frightening that will be,
Taking the divorce analogy- which is a very good one- we need to pray that the unloving husband does not fight every penny of settlement and turn to lawyers instead of compassion….but it is a big ask!
How rarely in history have Christians had an opportunity to step out courageously in faith for the sake of the historic teachings of Christ. Such moments call for sacrifices, and such crosses inevitably bear fruit in unforeseen resurrections, the flourishing afresh of the ancient faith for generations to come. But, that flourishing is most guaranteed in visible union with the historic Church. A branch once severed ought to seek grafting to the tree with deepest roots.
#7 Not always so Fr.J., sometimes hybrids produce the most beautiful and sweetest smelling roses. And every so often even the best benefit from replanting with new stock.
I heartily agree with driver8’s #4. Unfortunately, this seems like a rather defensive evaluation by +Kings. Too bad, I expected more from him. But at least I’m glad the Guardian, which is such a very liberal newspaper, asked someone of his caliber to write a response. They could easily have chosen someone much less moderate.
But I did really like +King’s opening paragraph, alluding to the papal visit to Canterbury back in 1982, and Dean de Waal’s brilliant idea to place the ancient copy of the Canterbury Gospels in the venerable cathedra of St. Augustine, and putting both the pope and the ABoC (Runcie) on opposite sides, thereby aptly symbolizing that both leaders are under God’s Word.
As for +Kings’ thinly veiled criticism of the Vatican for not consulting with the ABoC. I have to say that ++Rowan Williams has only himself to blame in many ways. It’s very revealing that ++Bob Duncan WAS informed, if not consulted, over 10 months ago and he was told that this adventuresome plan was in the works.
So yes, it was a snub of Canterbury. But it wasn’t accidental. It appears to have been quite deliberate.
And personally, I don’t blame the pope at all. The ABoC has sadly forfeited many of his rights to be treated as an important Christian leader, since he has manifestly failed to act like one.
David Handy+
WIth you David Handy+ – Rowan has no-one but himself to blame.Let us recall a few things:
1) When asked to deal with the Gene Robinson saga ++Rowan declares he is ‘first among equals’ and has ‘no authority’ to do anthing…so if he publically states an inability to lead- why consult him?
2) WHen Cardinal Kaspar approached Synod he was sent away empty handed. He had asked ‘what sort of a church do you want to be’….the silence spoke volumes. Not one that takes any notice of Rome….so why should Rome respond differently.
3) At last July’s synod the ABC asked synod to offer something to trads. The braying bunch ignored him- a terrible show of no confidence in his leadership and of his inability to lead. Despite much wringing of hands he has done nothing to safeguard a future for those to whom sincere promises were made. THe Vatican DID notice how disgracefully orthodox Catholics were treated…the buck stops somewhere.
He is undeniably a good and gentle man but a more ineffectual (deliberate or otherwise) leader is hard to imagine. He talks the talk of orthodoxy at times but has overseen the unravelling of a communion, fiddling whilst Canterbury burns. A sad resume but hard to deny. Unfortunately it is not really of his doing but down to the invention of synodical government but there you go….
as I said earlier- how deeply shameful or the C of E that Rome offers with ease and love what Synod has continually refused in barely disguised hatred…
Synod ’08 was a debacle for both ourselves and our world-wide image. All the intolerance we normally associate with TEC was on display. However the problem started before that when a divided House of Bishops sent their unsolved problem off to Synod to solve for them. Synod dutifully passed exactly what the Bishops had sent them.
Since then the Review Committee and the church have had a re-think. We still await hearing what they have to say. In many ways though, the Apostolic Constitution is part of the continuing fallout from Synod ’08.
I thought Bishop Graham’s piece was helpful and perceptive within the context in which it was written: the Apostolic Constitution and relations between Rome and Canterbury. Our church can be forgiven for reacting to having our nose put out of joint by actions in Rome to which we were not party or consulted.
For the future, I have felt that our leaders are very much in need of our prayers as Bishop Graham commends at the end of his piece, particularly for the Archbishop of Canterbury as he goes off to Rome.
However I also have a sense of us standing blinded in the headlights and lacking direction. The reaction is to stay still or go to ground and the lack of news on the Revision Committee and the committee on s.4 of the Covenant is indicative of this. The Irish and others have already said it should be passed along with the rest of the Covenant.
My concern is that our leaders will, although aware of the need for prayer and of our prayers for them, lack the courage to accept in full the blessing which the Holy Spirit stands ready to recharge them with, which would enable them to in turn lead the church and its direction in the service of Christ. Endless sermons on carbon offsets and climate change are all very well, but we need the Gospel proclaimed and to be led in doing this. I think if we do this many of the problems will solve themselves, including treating each other, with our differences, with kindness and forbearance. I hope our leaders have the courage to accept the gift of the prayers for them in full and embrace the wholeness of that commission of the Holy Spirit without fear or falling back. Anyway, that is my prayer.
#11 Yes – I think that’s broadly right. One might see how the Vatican had good reason, once it was minded to take action, not to add this into the ARCIC process which both sides have said will continue unaffected but even an optimist would say that the hope of visible unity seems more distant that it did when ARCIC began.
In addition the Communion might seem to have no body or office capable of authoritatively responding to a request for input. In other words if they had consulted with the ABC they placed him either in the position of saying (again) that he has no authority to make an input that would authoritatively represent the the Communion, or open themselves to the suggestion of a process of world wide consultation which, on other matters, shows little evidence of actually being capable of producing authoritative decisions itself.
Thirdly, one imagines there may just have been a vague recollection that when the Anglicans moved forward unilaterally (as RCs came to see it) with the presbyteral ordination and episcopal consecration of women, prior consultation with the RCs was not a hugely significant part of the process.
Finally I do regret that in Bishop Kings article the problematic nature of the “Roman offer” for the unity of UK FCA folks (and I agree with Bishop Kings) is rather more foregrounded that any heartache for what it may mean for the COE as a whole. Folks for whom he has pastoral responsibility are hurting, some are anguished and an expression of his love for them would have been generous.
Pageantmaster “All the intolerance we normally associate with TEC was on display.”
I do think you should be more moderate in what you say about TEC: you are needlessly, and perhaps not on the basis of the most balanced information, taking a side in someone else’s war, rather like those in Britain who pressed rather intemperately for the UK to support the South in the American Civil War… and we know now how that all ended up.
#13 Fr Mark
I don’t agree that it is “someone else’s war”. You might think that if TEC was Pastor Billy Bob’s First Church of the Dispensationalists [Real Ones].
However if like me you believe that the Anglican Communion is important, then how the American member behaves does matter to us in England and the Communion, and that includes where it behaves with intolerance, Wild West lawlessness and heterodoxy. It is, for the moment, the local franchisee and what it does and how it behaves affects all the rest of us. My position is quite clear: I support faithful Anglicans both within and outside TEC and that includes watching and listening carefully to what is going on; cutting through the web of misinformation and spin. It is only when we are truthful about what is going on that there is any hope for us as a Communion to face up to and deal with the issues. There are plenty who would like to just believe the spin and pretend that none of it is worth making a fuss about. An increasing number of Brits are watching carefully what is going on.
It is of course for you to decide who, if anyone you support and where you stand, but I rather get the impression that you have decided.
You can see the result of what is going on in the US and now over provision for Anglo-Catholics in the Pastoral Provision and the blowing apart of our ecumenical talks with Rome. What the Americans do does affect us as well as we are judged by our association with them.
That is why this thread topic has arisien talking about Bishop Graham’s take on the effect of the consequent Roman Catholic response, the Apostolic Constitution on England. This is being talked about not just here but in newspapers worldwide. How good is that for our witness?
Pageantmaster: but those on the conservative wing of the C of E at the moment tend to talk everything up. Just as Conservative Evangelicals for the whole of my lifetime have talked up being just on the edge of a great Evangelical revival about to sweep society (which hasn’t happened and is highly unlikely to), so they equally talk up the supposed iniquities of gay people. Really, one cannot believe the energy a few old men are expending upon the topic. When I am in the UK, I am continually struck by the appalling way in which so many heterosexuals are behaving, yet these conservative religious types are completely failing to address the evident problems of the heterosexual community, which rather gives the lie to their supposed “concern” for us gays.
No, there’s a kind of churchmen who just enjoys ratcheting up tension and division, and wallowing in self-righteousness, and that is the type which is flourishing by doing so much finger-pointing at the moment. It isn’t edifying. The TEC clergy I have worked with are nothing like the caricature tree-huggers that you appear too willing to believe in. And, as regards the C of E, I may say that I know many Church of England members, lay and clerical, who are really fed up with being pushed about by extreme hard-liners, and who are asking “How do we join TEC?” Being anti-gay and anti-ordained women is a much more extreme position in the UK than in the US, but such people make so much noise about it that one would hardly think so.
It would appear, Fr. Mark, that you are unfamiliar with Nottingham, Dromentine, the Windsor Report, Dar, and probably B020 of 1991 (the latter which declared that decisions over sexuality WERE the business of the Communion and must be determined at a Communion level). What is going on in the US is very much the business of everyone in the Communion, including our friend Pageantmaster.
You must also be unaware of KJS’s renouncing Bishop Scriven’s orders for him. He is one of theirs, you know. If you want to avoid foreign intervention in your war, it would be advisable to resist the temptation to fire on their flagships.
RE: “Really, one cannot believe the energy a few old men are expending upon the topic.”
Heh. As an old man myself I find my energy unflagging on the false gospel that progressive TEC activists are preaching.
Pageantmaster, please forgive Fr. Mark. He fails to admit that, when TEC revisionists achieved 51% of the vote, intolerance was the name of the game. Just ask any orthodox clergy who were run out, or pressured to get out, of liberal dioceses. At 49%, the mantra was “inclusion and dialogue”; believe me, at now 51% or more, it’s “uniformity”.
“Our church can be forgiven for reacting to having our nose put out of joint by actions in Rome to which we were not party or consulted.
For the future, I have felt that our leaders are very much in need of our prayers as Bishop Graham commends at the end of his piece, particularly for the Archbishop of Canterbury as he goes off to Rome”.
Prayers or not, and I mean no disrespect to the Pope, but if anyone thinks that ++Williams is going to get anything more from that smart, practical, fearless German than marching orders, well, then, I beg to differ.
It’s usually what happens when only one of two people in a picture is willing to act like a leader…
“Really, one cannot believe the energy a few old men are expending upon the topic”.
This is a complete misrepresentation of the truth, (A) and (B) when gay activists expend energy on the topic, that’s perfectly ok.
And frankly, I’m female and not “anti-gay”, but I am utterly “anti-gay Christian marriage”.
I don’t think anyone here is apt to give heterosexual sin a “pass”, but that does not mean that we can redefine the sacraments at will because “they’re doing bad things, too”.
“The TEC clergy I have worked with are nothing like the caricature tree-huggers that you appear too willing to believe in”.
Funny, I’ve met a lot of those.
I’m also not necessarily “anti-ordained women” but we don’t need alleged Christian ordained/consecrated women or men spouting off Unitarian-rant-cloaked-as-Anglicanism that “we come to relationship with God largely throught the holiness we experience in other human beings”; not to mention those who state they’re also half-Buddhist or half-Muslim.
If that is what happens when women get ordained, then thanks, I’ll take a pass.