To change the metaphor, the wall that has existed between Rome and Canterbury still stands, maintained, it must be said, largely by Rome. Gates have allowed those led by their consciences to pass across to the other side, but the slow, painstaking work of chipping away at the edifice ”” which many Anglicans thought was the object of dialogue with Roman Catholicism ”” has not yet born fruit. Certainly, this latest move amounts only to the erection of a larger gate, so that groups rather than individuals might cross over. Any who choose to do so will find themselves in another enclosure erected partly, we are told, to preserve the Anglican nature of the ordinariates, but mostly, we suspect, to protect the Roman Catholic dioceses from non-celibate priests and unfamiliar liturgy.
On the Anglican side, the view appears to be gaining ground that, for those people who have been petitioning Rome repeatedly and insistently, the time for persuading them to stay passed some time ago. The issue for them has ceased to be how to fit into the Anglican set-up, but whether the Pope’s offer meets their desires. Just how many of these petitioners there are remains to be seen, of course. When those in “irregular marriage situations”, and those who were formerly Roman Catholics, and those who have difficulty accepting the Roman Catholic Catechism in its entirety, and those who object to the removal of lay people from government are excluded from the figures, there might well be fewer than expected. But once they have decided, the true work of unity, the chipping away at those walls, can resume.
“…the wall that has existed between Rome and Canterbury still stands, maintained, it must be said, largely by Rome.”
Yup, with just a little help from the Philadelphia Eleven, the diocese of New Hampshire, the latest Episcopal Church General Convention, the dean of the Episcopal Divinity School, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Yup, that’s a Roman wall all right.
Father Dean Einerson
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
In any disagreement it’s always possible (but facile) to say – if only they would agree with me – then we’ll no longer be in dispute. So it’s really their fault that we disagree at all.
Slightly odd that the Church Times should make such an aside – in a context in which they’re reported for at least the last 6 years the ways in which substantive disagreements are fracturing TEC, the wider Communion and now even the COE.
I think this editorial is making some very valid points, particularly on behalf of the laity. OK, so Rome will accept married Anglican priests and will be rather generous to Anglican clerics and bishops. But has anyone sufficiently analyzed what problems look for the laity?
Those who are divorced and remarried will be denied the Holy Eucharist unless/until they get anulments. Contraception is not permitted, even for situations in which a pregnancy could threaten the mother’s life. (I know this for a fact — a close friend with a heart condition was told she and her husband could not use contraception even though she had a rare and very serious heart condition that would not enable her to survive a pregnancy.) The “disciplines” of Rome are absolute and unyielding. If Anglicans think they can cross their fingers and convert anyway, then they are mistaken and are being deceptive.
One of the broad points missed in this little essay is that the objectives of dialogue are different. For Anglicans the objective is to move the two “churches” closer to one another. For Rome the objective has always been to bring the Anglican “sect” back into the Catholic Church. There is not now, has never been, and will never be any concession on matters of doctrine from Rome. Once one gets that (and it is astonishing how many otherwise intelligent people don’t) then it becomes much easier to frame the discussions with Rome.
I am not Roman Catholic. (Been there and done that.) But I deeply respect the Roman approach to ecumenism. There is no ambiguity, no guess work. You always know exactly where you stand with Rome. I for one find that rather refreshing when contemplating the total lack of theological cohesion with Anglicanism.
In ICXC
John
Fr Einerson: you took the words right out of my keyboard.
Well put, Ad Orientem.
#3, so, you knew a woman who was willing to have “contraceptive” sex, even though she knew that if contraception failed she would die?