The rift between the Churches is not as wide as the Vatican makes out, the Archbishop of Canterbury argued this week.
Dr Williams was speaking in Rome on Thursday, before a private meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. In a lecture at a symposium to honour Cardinal Willebrands, the first ever president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, he challenged the view that the ordination of women was the stumbling block is has been made out to be.
This is kind of like Obama going to China and preaching about economics and the need to reduce deficit spending.
There is no argument. The RCC understands its beliefs clearly and will not be interested in the ABC’s personal opinions.
I think this was not aimed at the RC’s – who Rowan must realise will not take the slightest bit of notice. This was a speech in defence of Anglicanism to avoid him looking like a fool in light of the Pope’s offer. He was puffing out his chest and trying to find something to be proud of about his church…..which is admittedly a tricky task.
That he also chose this moment to sound the death knell to those opposed to WO spoke volumes. Seems the clock is ticking on my future in his church….
You may be right, Rugby. Under the guise of talking to Romans he’s actually haranguing Anglicans.
So what’s the message? “Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated.”
Ya think?
RW’s comments have all the effect and import of a sparrow’s shadow passing briefly across the back of a rhinocerous.
I see another possibility here. Since he really COULDN’T be as clueless as it looks, perhaps he is trying to send a positive message to liberal Anglicans, TEC and such. “See, I really am on your side!” What do you think?
My revisionist friends are pleased with RW’s empty verbiage. I -and Rome, no doubt- couldn’t care less.
“Argument?” To what “argument,” exactly, are they referring? Does the ABC think he’s delivering some kind of rhetorical forearm-smash-off-the-top-turnbuckle to Rome’s theological machinations?
Dare I say: sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Say it! Say it!
It is true for both the ABC and the Church Times in this case.
The substance of this address apart, did the AoC REALLY say “the Holy Spirit, [i]which[/i] animates”?
What revisionists/”progressivists” often forget is that the more they press an issue in opposition to Rome’s stance, the more likely Rome is to make clearer and more definite re-assertions. This will only widen the rift b/n Rome and Canterbury, I fear.
3 thoughts and one conclusion:
1) I find it odd that the Archbishop urges obedience in one breath but then upholds the right of his church to act alone in ordaining women.
2) It is also breathtaking that he actually invites Rome to join Anglicans in their approach to sacred ministry!! Is he serious?! If so the man needs committing to a psychiatric ward! Why would a church united around its altars possibly want to enter a period of disunity, civil war, pain and anguish such as exists here? WO has been a disaster to the Anglican communion – this speech suggest he is in serious denial.
3) Finally why does he commend the use of different bishops to cater to different people here – but stubbornly refuses to offer this in his own church where opponents to WO are consistently promised love but given nothing?
conclusion: RW’s confused, contradictory and strident message is not really a message to ROme, as I suggest earlier in ths thread. THis was he attempt to save face in the media and at home by giving a robust defence of Anglican liberalism. He is probably fully aware now that Rome’s actions will remove most of his Anglo-Catholics, the Evangelicals hang by a thread and will soon go too. Thus he needs friends somewhere….and the rejoicing on liberal message boards tells me he is back in favour in those quarters.
That said he looked nervous and uncomfortable according to those present. So there is a final possibility. He was ordered to stand up for Anglicanism without apology. Hence the discomfort for that is an almost impossible task…..
>” in what way does the prohibition against ordaining women so ‘enhance the life of communion’, reinforcing the essential character of filial and communal holiness as set out in Scripture and tradition and ecumenical agreement, that its breach would compromise the purposes of the Church as so defined?”
The prohibition “enhances the life of the communion” by ensuring that a valid Eucharist and the absolution of “sin that is deadly” is maintained. Without the Eucharist, I might as well be Muslim. Allah ahkbar!
Like it or not, due to God placing microscopic chromosomes in every human cell, men and women are as different as wine and grape juice. Remarkably similar, yet distinctly different. One valid sacramental matter and one not. Yet both are of benefit to life and the Church.
God bless…
Nodding vigorously to the drift of this thread.
[i] If the drift of the thread heads into WO, comments will be deleted. [/i]
why is that Elves? That is the hinge on which divide hangs in the present situation
I do believe the ABC is the one who brought up the subject, but perhaps I misread. As I understand it in this bit, the ABC is asserting with a fervor not seen in him in any other matter that part of the enormities of Rome is their failure to understand the Anglican full-bore implementation of females as a secondary matter! This is a claim to the infallibility of the ABC, I should think. After all, the Orthodox Churches are on the Catholic side of this matter as well. This constitutes the single largest power grab by the ABC since he personally invalidated each of the Instruments of Communion.