Father Dwight Longenecker: Analyzing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' speech in Rome

As far as I can make out the whole speech can be paraphrased thus:

1. The ARCIC talks have worked. We’ve made a lot of progress and we agree on all the basics.
2. We agree on the creed and the main points of the Christian faith.
3. Women’s ordination really isn’t such a big deal. We got used to it. You could too.
4. The way we get on is that we all agree to differ. We’re good with that. It works. You should try it.
5. Sometimes we have to make a compromise and so we have flying bishops and ‘impaired communion.’ That works too. It’s not so bad. You should try it.
6. Things are going fine. We don’t know why you guys are still so uptight about women priests and bishops. I’m sure you’ll probably have them one day too, and until then, lets have full communion and you can recognize our orders and we can all do things the Anglican way.

What I can’t get my head around is that Rowan Williams really seems to believe this….

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Religion News & Commentary, Anglican Provinces, Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England (CoE), Ecumenical Relations, Other Churches, Pope Benedict XVI, Roman Catholic

6 comments on “Father Dwight Longenecker: Analyzing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' speech in Rome

  1. Old Soldier says:

    Thanks Father,
    Much rather read your paraphrase, rather then another one of his
    rhetorical mumbo-jumbos.

  2. IchabodKunkleberry says:

    In his blog, Father Longnecker makes the point (item #2 therein) that …
    “[i]when you listen closely they (i.e. liberals) believe that the incarnation means, “Jesus was such a good human that he became godlike”[/i].

    This is pretty much the same point made nearly 90 years ago in an
    essay by J.Gresham Machen titled “Christianity & Liberalism”, which
    can be found here …

    http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/jgmchrandlib.htm

  3. Br_er Rabbit says:

    The headlines have made much about Rowan proposing that women bishops isn’t such a big deal. If he said that, I have not seen it. If he implied that, you’ll have to dig for it. If the headline writers inferred that, they’re only doing their job–selling papers.

  4. TridentineVirginian says:

    #3 – even if he’s only saying women [i]priests[/i] aren’t such a big deal etc. etc., it amounts to the same thing, in the end. The idea that you can ordain women priests but somehow if you accept that, women bishops can still be beyond the pale, is ridiculous. The whole match was lost back when the AC started ordaining women to the presbyteriate. Rome and Orthodoxy knew that way back in ’76.

  5. Br_er Rabbit says:

    You may well be correct, Tridentine, but headlines screaming “WOMEN PRIESTS!” Just wouldn’t sell that many papers.

  6. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    I like reading Fr. Longnecker’s blog posts, although you sometimes have to take him with a grain of salt because he has an ax to grind, being a former Anglican priest. I have had to stop reading his blog, however, because the commenters there are out of control and uncharitable (and downright hostile) to say the least.