The Archbishop of Canterbury’s insistence on communion with his office as a””if not the””defining characteristic of Anglicanism ought to come as no surprise. It is an institutional and process-driven answer to the question of Anglican identity from one who has shown himself to be more comfortable thinking in those categories than in theological ones. It makes the matter a simple one, one which can avoid divisive questions about whether a particular group has remained faithful to the confessional formularies (the 39 Articles and the books of Homilies, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal) or obedient to the Scriptures in matters of theology and Christian discipleship. Of course, it is not hard to see why avoiding those questions is desirable, especially to someone committed to maintaining some semblance of unity in a global institution which has been tearing itself apart for the past thirty years or more. Archbishop Welby has an impressive record in dispute resolution and he knows that institutional inclusiveness is a more achievable goal than theological agreement and a common commitment to biblical patterns of discipleship.
We must deny categorically and in the strongest possible terms that communion with the see of Canterbury is the determining factor when it comes to Anglican identity. It is not and never can be. A church, diocese or national body does not have to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury in order to be a legitimate member of the Anglican Communion, especially if a majority of other Anglicans around the world recognise it as part of our fellowship. Anglican identity is fundamentally a matter of certain theological commitments, anchored ultimately in the authority of Scripture as God’s word written (Article 20), together with an agreement to operate with a common pattern of church government (the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons). The Anglican Church has always been confessional in nature, as witnessed by the history of subscription to the Articles, which began in the time of Cranmer and continues around the world today.
RE: “We must deny categorically and in the strongest possible terms that communion with the see of Canterbury is the determining factor when it comes to Anglican identity.”
Great.
Wonderful!
But — why is he bringing it up? Canterbury didn’t say that communion with the see of Canterbury “is the determining factor when it comes to Anglican identity.”
So why is this being vociferously denied when nobody’s brought it up?
Hi Sarah,
Dr Thompson may have read a report of the meeting by David Virtue:
[blockquote] “Welby, who is visiting every province in the communion, said that virtually everywhere he goes, the analysis or definition of being Anglican is being in communion with Canterbury. “There is a strong attachment with Canterbury,†he added.” [/blockquote]
See http://www.virtueonline.org/archbishop-canterbury-sees-little-hope-acna-being-part-anglican-communion
I personally don’t know what ++Welby said – I haven’t seen a transcript of the interview between the ABC and the editor of the Irish Gazette, and I haven’t been able to find a recording of it that will play in my PC.
Whatever, he is going to create yet more controversy over it. He is also reported (by George Conger) to have said:
[blockquote] “virtually everywhere I have gone the analysis is that the definition of being part of the Anglican Communion is being in Communion with Canterbury … I haven’t faulted that [view],†[/blockquote]
Conger’s report gives the impression that ++Welby elevated “being in Communion with Canterbury” as THE defining feature of membership in the AC. That goes further than resolutions of any Lambeth Conference, further than the Virginia Report, and further even than the Windsor Report. I suspect it will raise as many liberal eyebrows as orthodox (not mine, for reasons I have outlined elsewhere).
Also interesting is that ++Welby didn’t define what he meant by “being in Communion with Canterbury”, which is interesting because no-one else has ever defined it either, to my knowledge. Apparently its something he can declare, or not declare, as he chooses, i.e. not related to actual “communion”.
Re that quote from Conger, I would be really intrigued if “virtually everywhere I have gone” referred to the Nairobi meeting of Gafcon! 🙂
RE: “Welby, who is visiting every province in the communion, said that virtually everywhere he goes, the analysis or definition of being Anglican is being in communion with Canterbury.”
That is not a direct quote.
RE: ““virtually everywhere I have gone the analysis is that the definition of being part of the Anglican Communion is being in Communion with Canterbury … I haven’t faulted that [view],â€
This appears to be a direct quote.
The two are different things.
By now, bunches of people have listened to the ABCs interview. I haven’t bothered but I’ve read parts of transcripts avidly.
I simply don’t think Welby said this: “. . . that communion with the see of Canterbury is the determining factor when it comes to Anglican identity.”
I don’t think he said this: “The Archbishop of Canterbury’s insistence on communion with his office as a—if not the—defining characteristic of Anglicanism ought to come as no surprise.”
So I see a couple of options.
1) The people rending their clothes, pouring ashes, and having hysterics on blogland over the ABC saying something he didn’t say aren’t very precise or thoughtful readers. They’re an embarrassment to actual reading of precise language and then responding to precise language.
2) They’re deliberately *conflating* “being Anglican” with “being a member province of the Anglican Communion” for their own political purposes — they decided they [i]wanted[/i] to do public rending and public ash throwing and public hysteria because they think it’s a great opportunity for them in some way to make a little hay with their allies.
So I have to vacillate between extraordinary incompetence or attempted-rhetorical manipulation and dishonesty.
RE: “I would be really intrigued if “virtually everywhere I have gone†referred to the Nairobi meeting of Gafcon!”
I could see that. That would take care of eight provinces.
Sarah, do we have a verified quote from the ABC? Or is all we have quotes from people who say what he said? You are right we need to know exactly what he said. Do we have that? I don’t know so I am asking.
Hi Br. Michael — there’s a full audio transcript of the interview.
Do I have too?:) Is there a written transcript?
There are Anglicans who call themselves “Catholic.” Whether they are or not is entirely a matter of definition and therefore it’s utterly pointless to debate it. What is clear, however, is that they are not *Roman* Catholics since this is something that is entirely defined by the relationship of a church to the See of Rome.
Seems to be the exact parallel here. Whether one is an “Anglican” or not is entirely a matter of definition. Whether one is part of the “Anglican Communion” or not is seemingly defined by the relationship of your church to the See of Canterbury.
“That is not a direct quote. … This appears to be a direct quote. The two are different things.”
Actually, you could also have said that its from David Virtue anyway, so shouldn’t it all be checked. 🙂 But in fairness that applies to every second hand report of this meeting.
“The people rending their clothes, pouring ashes, and having hysterics on blogland over the ABC saying something he didn’t say aren’t very precise or thoughtful readers. ”
Firstly, “rending clothes and having hysterics” does actually seem to describe your reaction as well as anyone else’s. Secondly, we don’t know that ABC didn’t say it, so let’s not go asserting things as fact that we aren’t actually sure about – your comment about “precise or thoughtful readers” apply to you as well.
“So I have to vacillate between extraordinary incompetence or attempted-rhetorical manipulation and dishonesty.”
If you work hard, you can avoid both. 😉
“I could see that. That would take care of eight provinces.”
No actually it wouldn’t, since in all the accounts I have read, it appears ++Welby was not referring only to Primates at this point. He met people from a lot more than just 8 provinces at Nairobi.
Hi Catholic Mom “seemingly” is correct. Or “according to Justin Welby”. Whether he has any right to make such an assertion is another thing altogether (he doesn’t).
RE: “Firstly, “rending clothes and having hysterics†does actually seem to describe your reaction as well as anyone else’s.”
If you’d like to assert that ponderously pointing out the tedious errors of precision of now-multiple ACNA apologists is “rending clothes and having hysterics” I’m comfortable with that. I expect people can tell the difference between that and churning out essays being insulted and offended about something that a leader didn’t even say.
RE: “Seems to be the exact parallel here.”
It is, Catholic Mom — but please pretend that it is obscure and confusing. It will make a few people feel much better.
8. Catholic Mom – no Anglican has ever claimed to be Roman Catholic, at least not for about four centuries or so.
That does not negate the Catholicity of Anglicans and the Orthodox Churches, all of which are Catholic.
If it bothers you that our belief and liturgy include in the Catholic group, you’ll just have to get over it, lady.
Neither the half dozen or so Anglican Primates who consecrated Archbishop Foley this evening nor Pope Francis who sent him a message of greeting seem to be worried about the ACNA’s status, so I am not sure why Catholic Mom is.
RE: “If it bothers you that our belief and liturgy include in the Catholic group, you’ll just have to get over it, lady.”
Actually Catholic Mom was admitting — for the first time in my recollection — that “whether [individual Christians] are or not [“Catholic”] is entirely a matter of definition and therefore it’s utterly pointless to debate it.”
So no — it doesn’t appear to “bother” her at all, although of course I’d guess that her definition of “Catholic” is that of the “Roman Catholic” — because she *is* “Roman Catholic.”
RE: “so I am not sure why Catholic Mom is.”
I agree! I have long said that Catholic Mom shouldn’t be commenting on Anglican matters or on an Anglican blog at all! Why should we allow Roman Catholic to opine on Anglican blogs!
[Sarah, seeing her chance to rid herself at last of Catholic Mom, with whom she very rarely agrees . . . ]
; > )
I’m aware of that. 🙂 I think you missed my point. It was a “as with this…so with that” argument. “As calling yourself a “Catholic” is a matter of personal definition but calling yourself a “Roman Catholic” is not, so calling yourself an “Anglican” is a matter of personal definition but calling yourself a member of the Anglican Communion is not.”
Well, I could actually imagine a church that met my definition of catholic (Universal) other than the Roman Catholic Church, I just don’t know of any others that do. Aside from having a sacramental theology it would have to be 1) a single international organization (including its wholly owned subsidiaries) with a single international governing body (and I mean “governing” not “suggestion”) and 2) it would have to have a really really lot of people in it. Being a small minority within a small national church would not do it.
I am allergic to Catholic blogs and most Catholic discussions. On the other hand, the Anglicans have an ongoing soap opera that is pretty easy to grasp, has a limited yet well-drawn cast of characters, and affords a regular dose of schadenfreude.* It also presents an ongoing object lesson to others. What’s not to like?
* Used in this sense (from Wikipedia): ” the idea that when people around us have bad luck, we look better to ourselves.”
RE: “On the other hand, the Anglicans have an ongoing soap opera that is pretty easy to grasp, has a limited yet well-drawn cast of characters, and affords a regular dose of schadenfreude.*
Tee hee.
. . . [b]ELVES!!!![/b] [i]Any chance you could come in and sweep Catholic Mom away for being RC and commenting on an Anglican blog?[/i]
And for calling us a [i]soap opera[/i]?
Only Anglicans should be allowed to call us a soap opera.
[T19 welcomes ecumenical commenters, particularly if they are entertaining – Elf]
Hi Catholic Mom, we may not have a Pope, but yours very graciously sent his greetings to the investiture service: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11155320/Pope-Francis-signals-blessing-to-breakaway-traditionalist-US-Anglican-church.html
I like the part where he rings ++Venables and says “Its Francis”, Venables says “Francis who”, and its not until Il Papa says “No, its Father Jorge” that the penny dropped. 🙂
As ++Venables says, it was done “with a wonderful degree of humility and patience” by the Pope.
I like this guy. 🙂 But then, I’ve liked all the popes in my lifetime.
Hey Catholic Mom — this is off-topic, but do you really like Francis?
I personally think he’s dreadful — and the latest latest news, along with all the previous news of his reign — says why, yet again.
But I’m genuinely curious as to your opinions on his, um . . . policies.
Do you think him just a guy who wants very very much to charm and is working hard at it? And the media and libs are being deceived by the charm effort? Or do you think he’s genuinely setting out to “reform” — kinda like, you know, Frank Griswold was.
See…I think the Catholic slice of the world is very different from the Protestant (or at least the Anglican) slice of the world.
The Protestants have two very clearly differentiated antagonistic positions — the conservatives and the liberals. And you probably know a lot about the beliefs/objectives/thought processes of an individual if you know which of two groups they’re in. And when a Protestant liberal starts saying “”Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners” you know exactly where that’s headed.
But it’s not like that in the Catholic world. Consider the current Pope’s namesake. The ultimate hippy. A guy who never condemned anybody for anything. A guy whose expression of love of God over mammon bordered on the irrational. A guy who came into towns singing and dancing and preaching to birds. (hence his self-assigned nickname “God’s fool.”) A guy with a huge popular following who was called to Rome to answer to the Pope for fear that he intended to use that following to demand reformation of the Church. Obviously a “liberal” of the most extreme type. Except that when someone complained to him about a priest who was living with his mistress he said “I must go there immediately and speak with him” and when he got there he knelt down before the priest and kissed his hands and said “I kiss the hands that have held my savior.” Francis didn’t come to demand reforms. He just came to show people what was possible when filled with the love of God. And that changed a lot. He started his mission when Jesus appeared to him in a recurring dream and said “Francis, my Church is falling down. Build up my Church.” And he did. In his way.
Right now the Catholic Church, IMHO, is in the worst danger it has ever been in 2,000 years and it is the result of the totally self-inflicted abuse scandal. Honestly, I don’t know if the Church is going to recover. You only get so many chances not to screw up and then you “lose the mandate of Heaven” as the Chinese say and your turn on the stage of world history is over.
I think the Church is falling down and I think Francis may be one of the very few people who *might* be able to build it up. Unlike the way Protestants view their leaders: 1) I truly believe that he has been sent by God to try to do it and 2) I completely accept his right, indeed his obligation, to do whatever he thinks needs to be done to do it. I don’t second guess the Pope. Furthermore, I am utterly convinced that he is as faithful a son of the Church as any pope before him. And that’s saying a lot. He is not going to betray the Church, he is going to try to save it. In his way.
RE: “See…I think the Catholic slice of the world is very different from the Protestant (or at least the Anglican) slice of the world. The Protestants have two very clearly differentiated antagonistic positions—the conservatives and the liberals.”
Boy.
I think trying to believe that the RC leaders aren’t *precisely* the same is pretty naive, Catholic Mom. I just hope I’m around to read your admission of this truth 20 years from now! ; > )
Frankly, I could name which side most of the RC leaders are on in a trice — [i]with the exception of the ones who prefer that we not know[/i] and I think there are a goodly portion like that, kind of like there were a goodly portion like that in TEC back in the 1960/70s. So the RC church has a much huger percentage of self-proclaimed “moderate” bishops and cardinals . . . for reasons I won’t explain since anybody reading T19 already knows why!
RE: “Consider the current Pope’s namesake. The ultimate hippy.”
Well I think that’s been the spin about St. Francis — but I’ve never really bought into that particular thread of hype about him.
RE: “Unlike the way Protestants view their leaders: 1) I truly believe that he has been sent by God . . . ”
Hey man . . . we Protestants *do* think God’s will is done in our leaders. It’s just not always very fun! And we think God’s will was done in the Roman Catholic leaders as well — even centuries ago — but it just wasn’t very fun for both sides! ; > )
. . . Well, thanks for your honest answer. I was genuinely curious and I asked and you answered.
Hopefully we’ll still be around 20 years from now for me to accept your full and wholehearted groveling admission of wrong in the gracious manner which I am determined to display.
[i][kidding . . . sort of . . . ][/i]
; > )
Of course there are “conservatives” and “liberals” in RCC politics — but there is a whole other dimension that doesn’t come into play in Protestant politics and that is loyalty to the Church itself. I’ve got to be very careful how I say this because I know it’s going to be misinterpreted no matter how I do, but Catholic’s love of the Gospel is synonymous with their love of the Church. You can’t love one without loving the other and still be a Catholic. I don’t divide Catholic leaders into liberals and conservatives. I divide them into “who has the best interests of the Church at heart and who is a power-freak in it for themselves.” I know conservatives and liberals in each category. I also know conservatives AND liberals with the attitude “we had to destroy the village to save it.” I group Francis, Benedict, and John Paul together as those who did their honest best to serve the interests of the Church.
BTW, one of the (many, many) beauties of a belief purgatory is that you can imagine your various opponents spending hundreds or thousands of years contemplating their errors in abject misery.
Interesting, Catholic Mom . . .
But I would say that this all applies to Protestants as well . . .”loyalty to the Church itself,” “love of the Gospel is synonymous with their love of the Church,” conservatives and liberals who are power-freaks or have “the best interests of the Church at heart” — of course the *definitions* of church are entirely different, but pretty much all of that can be easily applied to libs and conservatives in Anglitania or even in Baptist-land.
So it seems that our primary difference is that despite the above, I think that RCs also have “two very clearly differentiated antagonistic positions—the conservatives and the liberals” — with the one believing the Gospel and the other believing a different gospel . . . and I think that *reality* greatly affects the church whether people want it to or not or recognize it or not.
RE: “BTW, one of the (many, many) beauties of a belief purgatory is that you can imagine your various opponents spending hundreds or thousands of years contemplating their errors in abject misery.”
I can imagine.
But . . . don’t you think that when in purgatory probably the very last and least most important thing you will contemplate is “dang, I sure was wrong on that T19 debate with that Protestant girl Sarah!” ; > )
I think that Catholic Mom in comment #8 is right on (but have to agree with Sarah 100% in comments #19-23). Catholic Mom, in comment #8, points out that there is a similarity between:
1. Definitions of “catholic” and “Anglican”, pointing out that both are terms that are open to a lot of different definitions; and
2. Definition of what is a “Roman Catholic” and who is a “member” of the “Anglican Communion”, pointing out that these are much more tightly defined terms.
It would seem silly to me to argue that ACNA isn’t “Anglican” and equally silly to try to pretend that it is a “member” of the “Anglican Communion.” It seems to me that those who are so adamantly arguing that ACNA most certainly is a member of the Anglican Communion wouldn’t need to argue so vociferously if it was indeed a member (because it would be obvious to everybody, just as it is quite obvious that TEC still is a member of the Anglican Communion).
I am not a big fan of Justin Welby, but I really don’t understand why people are so upset about what seems to me a very objective statement on his part.
It is, of course, possible to reduce your time in purgatory by getting a jump-start on repentance and enlightenment in this life, which is why saints don’t go there at all, but procrastinator that I am I’m pretty much putting off recognizing (or even thinking about) all the things I’m wrong about until after my death. I’m planning to work my way into heaven on the basis of my “good works” alone, although even there I’m probably just going to wait until the last minute to get seriously started.
Now you’re just channeling Jack Chick . . .
From Archbishop Venables:
[blockquote] Now many of you know that in Argentina up until last year we had a very, very, very wonderful personal and close working relationship with Cardinal Bergoglio. It was our joy and privilege to work with him and walk together with him in the Gospel, because our brother is a Bible-believing, born again, Christ-centered Christian. [/blockquote]
I believe this supports my view that most [many? some? but I think most] Catholic leaders cannot be categorized using the same liberal/conservative criteria used to categorize Protestant leaders. If it turns out I’m wrong, both Archbishop Venables and I can discuss it in purgatory. 🙂
Since ++ Venables is not a follower or a member of the Roman Church, it is highly unlikely he will be visiting such an ephemeral site as purgatory…
As one would assume you are aware, one of the four bases of the Anglican Church is the Thirty-Nine Articles. If, however, this is new to you, here is one of many sites explaining them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles
Or, if you are familiar with them, you may have overlooked Art. 22 therein, which states:
[i]XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.[/i]
Oh Luke — next you’re going to be telling me that Rome is not the One True Church!
And what is this thing called the “Thirty-Nine Articles”? None of us have ever heard of this document.
[i][Don’t taze me bro’!][/i]
Catholic Mom — I don’t think I’ve ever had so much fun on a thread with you [admittedly we have set a low standard over the years]. We need to get back to the Good Old Days of arguing about collectivism and the minimum wage, rather than engaging in this Holy Dialogue and Indaba.
You all will have *plenty* of time to review the thirty nine articles point by point in purgatory. Perhaps you will wish to revise them at that time. I will be there myself atoning for the amount of time I spent on Anglican blogs.