In an interview with Vatican Radio in Rome, where the archbishop is with other English prelates for their ad limina visit, Archbishop Nichols said, “The reaction to this document is, in a certain sense, measured. There was a strong reaction at first, which was inflated by the media. Now we are in a phase of evaluation, reflection and prayer.”
In order for there to be a “complete assessment of the Pope’s initiative,” the archbishop said, “one must consider the important announcement of the start of the third phase of ARCIC talks, the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission. In my opinion, the two are related.”
[blockquote]“The response of the Holy Father has given a positive stimulus to ARCIC’s debates,†he continued adding that the coinciding of the launch of ARCIC III and the apostolic constitution “Anglicanorum coetibus” is not a coincidence.â€[/blockquote]
LOL. What part of LaLaLand does AB Nichols inhabit? How has the Apostolic Consititution improved Catholic-Anglican relations and the prospect of ARCIC, save for humiliating Rowan Williams? Full marks however for greasing up to the CDF and Vatican.
I nominate AB Nichols for the 2010 Oleaginous Writing Award.
I can’t wait for his piece on how Pius XII averted the holocaust.
I hope the elves will review #2 and find it has contentious as I do.
Well said Pageantmaster!
However there are many who are saying that Kaspar managed to get the new Arcic talks only because the CDF messed up so badly on the Anglican Ordinates.
Have you noticed that the English/Wesh hierarchy are trying to take hold of the ethos of this new group – making it very clear that they WILL be mainstream Romans and there will be no two tier Church?
It appears that the reality of Anglicanorum Coetibus is simply to bring in continuum groups like TAC (and a few smaller ones) who have been petitioning for admission to Rome for years. i.e. there is no intention (and indeed no desire) to bring in other Anglicans by this means: any of +++Williams’ flock who want to cross the Tiber can do it in the same way as anyone else, i.e. individual admission.
That is why the Curia didn’t give the ABC any forewarning of the move – they weren’t being rude, its just that none of the groups to be admitted through Anglicanorum Coetibus have had any connection with Canterbury or the Anglican Communion for decades.
#5 Michael A
[blockquote]That is why the Curia didn’t give the ABC any forewarning of the move – they weren’t being rude, its just that none of the groups to be admitted through Anglicanorum Coetibus have had any connection with Canterbury or the Anglican Communion for decades[/blockquote]
Hmm – from a US or Australian perspective you may be right, but not from a UK one. TAC and other groups could have been drawn in separately, but it was decided to widen the net considerably, drawing in particularly CofE Anglo-Catholics, and they are still a group who may in greater or lesser numbers be drawn into such provision. It was read by everyone in England, save a few in official denial, as targeted specifically at the CofE, and its Anglo-Catholics, and it was very rudely done – we thought.
#4 Reverend Reynolds – a very interesting perspective I thank you for. My own reading is that things are very much up in the air on all sides: the Catholic bishops of England and Wales; the Church of England where women bishops have been booted off to the next Synod in the Summer [all for apparently necessary reasons we are told by the desperately overworked and exhausted revision committee]; and of course, the clergy, parishes and laity who are considering their place in the CofE.
“Never do today, what you can put off ’till tomorrow”.
pageantmaster,
Thanks for the comment, very interesting.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what objective indications have there been that the Curia wants CofE Anglo-Catholics to use anglicanorum coetibus? You may well be able to set me straight on this, but I am just having trouble finding any. and conversely, there have been a couple of statements by senior vatican types which imply it is only aimed at groups which have requested it.
I am interested in pronouncements by anyone relevant, it doesn’t have to be curia strictly speaking…I note that ++Nichols statement doesn’t address the issue at all (actually its not very clear about most things).
#7 MichaelA
Thanks – you will have to go back to the reports which came out around the time of the announcement of the Apostolic Constitution, and in particular the reports given to the Conference of UK Forward in Faith by the CofE flying bishops who had been for discussions with Rome. I transcribed some of them on a T19 thread and you can find them by using the search facility.
RE: “How has the Apostolic Consititution improved Catholic-Anglican relations and the prospect of ARCIC, save for humiliating Rowan Williams?”
I agree that it hasn’t. ARCIC was the bone thrown to Kaspar after the stinging defeat of having the liberal RC bishops circumvented — heh. And it’s been lovely to watch.
As for humiliating Rowan Williams — oh, I would say he’s utterly shameless, so I doubt he’s humiliated. I’d love for that to be true — maybe the natural consequences of his total lack of credibility would be borne in upon him. But I doubt he’s humiliated. More’s the pity.
[blockquote]As for humiliating Rowan Williams—oh, I would say he’s utterly shameless, so I doubt he’s humiliated. I’d love for that to be true—maybe the natural consequences of his total lack of credibility would be borne in upon him. But I doubt he’s humiliated. More’s the pity.[/blockquote]
I doubt if I or most of the CofE give two hoots whether Rowan Williams personally is either humiliated or cares about it; most of it he brings on himself, including the dismissive approach the Holy See to him.
However, most of us do care about the office of Archbishop of Canterbury both as Primate of our church and its public embodyment when he represents it. Humiliation of his office, is humiliation of us and we do take note of it and react to it.
Sounds as if, according to Damian Thompson, HM wasn’t too impressed either:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100024340/unhappy-queen-sends-lord-chamberlain-to-ask-archbishop-nichols-about-popes-anglican-plan/
[btw Damian, HM taking an interest in the affairs of the church she has promised to uphold is NOT a breach of protocol.]
I am sure none of us are careless about Rowan dear Pageantmaker.
Yes, there certainly is a queen in a hissy fit that the other Queen doen’t approve of all his plotting and the outcome.
Interesting how she handled it, no sending for the Nuncio, rather the Lord Chamberlain who I am sure she sent with the message: “if you don’t take all that sleeze out o your show – I’m go’na shut you down.”
Well it is interesting to see that the Lord Chamberlain has any function nowadays since they took away his blue pencil, other than fussing about, and presumably walking backwards.
RE: “Yes, there certainly is a queen in a hissy fit that the other Queen doen’t approve of all his plotting and the outcome.”
My my — it’s always good to see the bile overflowing the public constraints of the liberal activists — a good picture of the underlying and constant bitterness. [Bitterness and bile that is passing strange since, from one perspective at least, the liberal activists in Anglitania are winning.]
But the story, of course, is that the Queen did not trust the ABC to tell her the reality. It’s no surprise that the Queen would rather not have the potential of good chunks of her church departing en masse for Rome. The surprise is that the discussion was not held with the ABC. She sent a more . . . shall we say . . . objective emissary to hear more.