The Archbishop of Canterbury has mounted a direct challenge to the Roman Catholic Church’s stance against the ordination of women priests.
In a speech in Rome today, he made clear there could be no turning back of the clock on women priests to appease the Pope, the Catholic Church or malcontents in the Church of England.
He dismissed the Pope’s plan to welcome disaffected Anglicans into the Catholic Church as little more than a “pastoral response” which broke little new ground in relations between the two churches.
[blockquote]which broke little new ground in relations between the two churches. [/blockquote]
The problem, Mr. Rowan, is that you represent an organization that is rapidly ceasing to be a Christian church in any sense of the word, so there is no more ground to break between you and us.
The period of reception is over! As if we did not know it already.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
I am so sorry for my comment on the previous thread. Who knew Rowan would finally find the courage to speak.
He is so sad to hear and watch. I wish him well but I wish it was in retirement. Perhaps before he meets with the Pope?
I think this is telling regarding the upcoming vote in the CoE and women in the episcopate. Time to decide, my FiF friends.
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! RCC savaged by dead sheep!
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Anglo-Catholics savaged by confused shepherd!
Please go easy on the sarcasm–ed.
“refusing to ordain women could not enhance a Church communion”
yea, that and ordaining, marrying, and consecrating gays will really increase your attendance!!
Well at least the ABC and the AB of the ACNA agree on the ordination of women priests. I do not think Bishop Duncan will ever go to Rome or to the East!
[blockquote] “I want to propose that we now need urgent clarification of whether these continuing points of tension or difference imply in any way that the substantive theological convergence is less solid than it appears, so that we must still hold back from fuller levels of recognition of ministries or fuller sacramental fellowship,” he said.[/blockquote]
The ABC apparently only listens to what he wants to. (Dont we all?) That clarification was already strikingly, stunningly, forebodingly communicated by the dove-like Cardinal Kasper back in July 2008. I have put in bold the relevant passages [url=http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/text-of-cardinal-kasper-to-anglican-bishops-its-over/]here[/url].
It is understandable to me that the ABC and the Vatican both wish to present the new situation as “business as usual.” Rome does not want to publicly embarrass the ABC, and the ABC wants to save face for himself and his church. But, we need to be realistic. Ecumenical business as usual is not so much interrupted by this papal provision for dislocated Anglicans, or even by the ordination of gay bishops, but by the ordination of women as bishops. That will be the final blow that cannot be reversed. And this final blow will not at all be dealt by Rome who stands in the doorway watching its neighbor building a impregnable wall all the while insisting that it is one peering from the portal who is being inhospitable.
[The reason gay bishops are not a deal breaker for the Vatican as is WO, is that sacramental ordination is not impeded by moral weakness. It is only impeded by lack of intent, lack of competence on the part of the one ordaining, or lack of proper matter. Women are not qualified for ordination. So the ordination of women is a matter of an essential breakdown, while the ordination of practicing homosexuals is not. This goes back to Augustine and [i]ex opere operato[/i].
One might wonder why any of this matters if the Vatican doesn’t regard Anglican orders valid anyway. Ah, but this is a critical distinction. While Rome considers Anglican succession doubtful, it does believe that Anglicans have the INTENT to ordain. This intent is why Anglicans have a pastoral provision and, say, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists do not. With WO in play on the episcopal level, the competency of the minister is doubtful as before, the matter of the sacrament is impossible and now even the INTENT is in question, because of a clear break with apostolic tradition as well as succession.]
Perhaps I’m a bit thick-headed, but what is the “unwelcome implication” cited by ++Rowan ?
He stated …
“For many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised womenâ€.
Methinks that Emperor Williams has no clothes and will find it to be quite chilly in Rome. As for B16’s papal visit Rowan looks more like the third wheel rather than the center of attention.
Intercessor
Who knew that the ABC had the papal authority to end the reception process on WO or that he had done it? Has Rowan finally decided to bare all the grace left in the body and actually declare his actual intent? Is this why he was so defeated in Synod over provision for those unaccepting of WO?
Inconsistency.
Isn’t the “unwelcome implication” something like, if one is persuaded by the anti WO case, God is seen to be distinguishing amongst the baptized based on gender. In other words it implies, as some might view it, an essential inequality amongst the baptized. Of course, if one is not so persuaded then one might feel that God may call whom he wills and if he has willed only to call men it implies difference but no more inequality than his will to use bread in the eucharist or water in baptism.
Doubtless the speech expresses the ABC’s longstanding public support for WO. However I do wonder if the unusual clarity for a public pronouncement by the ABC is, in small part, preparatory to attempting to win some better provision for Anglo Catholics at General Synod? Time will tell.
Very wise. Always keep the enemy in front.
#11 IchabodKunkleberry says:
The “unwelcome implication” is that baptized women are inferior to baptized men.
Yes, I am aware that opponents of WO do not agree that that is what is implied by not ordaining women. But that’s what Rowan is alluding to.
#16,
Williams’ apparent view is mostly dangerous not because of its affirmation of the ordination of women (though problematic), but even moreso the notion that all baptized persons are equally within their rights to join the priesthood. It simply ain’t so. Only folks who are called to do so may do so, which already distinguishes among those who have been baptized.
even moreso the notion that all baptized persons are equally within their rights to join the priesthood
Isn’t this already becoming the accepted view in TEC? It’s not about a call, it’s about a right?
#17, exactly. It isn’t just that someone believes that they have that call, but that the community confirms that call, and the Church makes the determination that they are fit. The call to ordination isn’t a right, and God help us if we ever move to make it one!