Meanwhile, some members of the Anglican-Catholic team in Rome seem to live in a world of their own. Monsignor Donald Bolen, a Canadian priest at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, recently printed once again the list of ecumenical documents signed by the clerical academics from both sides over some 30 years, implying that they represent a real advance in communications between the two bodies. (“Dialogue beyond the media sensationalism”, L’Osservatore Romano–English edition–February 13, 2008). But as Anglicanim in the West has been disintegrating since 1930, causing a splitting off from official national Anglican churches, this view seems highly dubious. Today, the “Traditional Anglican Church” community is a large umbrella for groups of Anglicans who broke relations with their national bodies as long as three decades ago.
Recently, their representatives in Britain asked for formal talks with Rome. The Church should work with them, not with the British/North American/Australian dissenting liberals whose intellectual and spiritual confusion is severing the last links with Orthodox Christianity.
Similarly, the Anglicans have split already worldwide. Contact should be taken up with groups in Africa and Asia who are defending traditional Christian doctrines against the rejection of biblical and moral teaching by the post-modernist secularizers among Western Anglicans. Canadian Catholic bishops, too, should discourage contact with dissembling Anglicans.
I have had an opportunity to work with Donald+ while in Rome several years ago. He’s a good man and certainly not naive about what is happening in the Anglican world(s). My hunch is that the republication reflects a desire on the part of the PCPCU, which he represents, graciously to remind TEC and its supporters of their commitments. He’s been assigned the task of walking the extra mile with their errant “sweetest sister” (Paul VI). I do not see this going any where, but at least the PCPCU will be able to say they tried to bring her back to her senses.
I would have liked a link to the original. Usually there is a “read it all” link on posts like this.
The full article is at http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article_804.shtml
Unfortunately, apart from its slight oversimplification of this as a global North/Global South divide, I agree with the final paragraphs. Ecumenical dialogue with the reappraisers will not benefit Rome of this article, and will ultimately be of little use (although possibly, if they actually listen, it might benefit the reappraising Anglicans. That I have just typed that given my own substantial differences with the Roman church is somewhat depressing).
Watch for whether B16 meets with the TEC Presiding Bishop while he is in New York: is she present, vested, at any ecumenical services? Is she an invited guest, not vested? How does he greet her? Do they meet privately?
Hope this isn’t OT, but it will tell us something about Catholic/Anglican relations.
[blockquote]The pope is no friend of Christ or His people.[/blockquote]
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Try not to get any lighter fluid on your robe at the next cross-burning.
I dunno, Hugh, Cranmer’s legacy is not making the most impressive displays of fidelity and conviction in the face of modernism and Islam. What good fruit is borne by that “theological understanding of the papacy”?
#4
While what I wrote above might seem supportive of the papacy, I am not a Roman and cannot become one because I strongly disagree with a number of Roman dogmas (in particular those highlighted by the reformers and which the Roman church has not subsequently corrected, and those innovations made by the Roman church since the reformation). In particular, I disagree with their sacramental theology, theology on justification, ecclesiology to a limited degree, and their invocation of relics and the saints. The first three (I include the papacy in the third point) are enough to keep me out of the Roman church. However, I think that you are being a little too extreme, for several reasons:
1) Our two chief enemies in this time for all Christians (but particularly in Europe where I live) are secular humanism (whether naturalist or Kantian/Schleiermacherian) and Islam. (The re-appraisers are simply the friendly face of secular humanism). The Roman Church is mistaken on a number of important issues, but Christianity is still noticeably there. We have a great deal in common. They are our allies in the larger fight; we can debate sola fide, but we all agree that Christ is the son of God died for our sins, was resurrected, through him alone we have new life etc., and that is more important in this age. I would much rather live in a Roman country than a humanist or Islamic one. If the church gets driven underground, Roman, Anglican, Reformed, Eastern: we will have to unite to survive.
2) “Nobody knows the day or the hour.” We also do not know (in complete detail) the means by which it will come about. If you mean by anti-christ simply an enemy of Christ, then I would debate with you whether we can truly include the current pope and previous one (the two of which I have knowledge). If you mean the “man of lawlessness” of 2 Thessalonians 2, then I would both strongly disagree and advise you not to pin your eschatology too strongly on one model. It may be the pope (though I consider it unlikely, unless the Roman church is taken over by reappraisers or secularists), it may be a politician; it may be someone else. The Bible is not clear. We can speculate for fun all we like, but not take it too seriously unless it is clearly ruled out by scripture, otherwise we might close our mind by sticking resolutely to preconceived, possibly human inspired ideas. In the end we simply have to wait, be watchful, be faithful and be ready.
3) If this puts me in disagreement with the reformers, so be it. (I do not believe it puts me in disagreement with the articles). I do not consider them infallible. As long as I maintain a position consistent with scripture and the creeds, and what can necessarily be derived by force of reason from them, and do not go beyond that into what could be an erroneous position (`officially:’ I speculate as much as the next guy, but I recognise it to be just speculation), I’m happy.
Because modern Anglicanism has no particular fixed beliefs and requires no particular beliefs from its members or clergy, it’s simply pointless for Rome to bother talking with Anglican bodies. Of course some Anglican bishops may require their ordinands to hold certain beliefs and there may be certain beliefs that are nominally professed in the local version of the BCP, but there are no actual beliefs that all Anglicans are required to share. For example, no Anglican is currently under any obligation to accept any of the various ARCIC statements as being true. These statements represent the opinion of the Anglican representatives to ARCIC, perhaps the opinion of a few other Anglicans, and that’s all.
Perhaps if there is an Anglican covenant someday the situation might change, but as things stand, these ecumenical attempts are a well-intentioned waste of time. There simply is no defined system of belief in Anglicanism with which any other body might come to an agreement and everyone’s time and resources could be used in a more productive fashion than in pointless ecumenical gestures.
#10, I’m being neither. I cut my teeth on Foxe a long time ago, know better now, and have no interest in propaganda or a contest over whose martyrs are better.
[blockquote]Reformers (and Articles) are far from infallible. But they rightly knew a false gospel when they saw one.[/blockquote]
How do you know they knew if they could have been completely wrong? It’s just your interpretation and theirs, vs the Catholic or Orthodox interpretation vs the liberal protestants. How do we know who is rightly interpreting God’s Holy Word?
I see the Kensitites have joined the conversation! Watch out for falling industrial files -they cause nasty contusions!
Do you think, Hugh, that when St. Paul wrote to the Church of Corinth that he had the successors of St. Peter in mind?
“At least get off this Anglican site and go pester a Dominican or Jesuit.”
I wouldn’t worry your pretty little head too much. I’ll be thrown off this site sooner or later.
Last I looked Hugh, this is Kendall’s site, not yours. It’s not for you to tell others whether they belong here or not.
But Hugh, I thought Huguenots were essentially Calvinists – not exactly Anglicans!
[i] This thread is getting off topic. Please return to discussing Kendall’s original post. And, yes, keep in mind this is Kendall’s site. [/i]
-Elf Lady
#4, Cranmer notwithstanding, there are Anglicans from early days of the English Reformation who continued to view Rome as a sister church sadly in need of reform, with whom the Church of England would gladly be in communion once those reforms were put in place:
From Richard Hooker’s The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book III, I, 10:
“We hope therefore that to reform ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the Church we were of before. In the Church we were, and we are so still. Other difference between our estate before and now we know none but only such as we see in Juda; which having sometime been idolatrous became afterwards more soundly religious by renouncing idolatry and superstition. If Ephraim ‘be joined unto idols,’ the counsel of the Prophet is, ‘Let him alone.’ ‘If Israel play the harlot, let not Juda sin.’ ‘If it seem evil unto you,’ saith Josua, ‘to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods whom your fathers served beyond the flood, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell: but I and mine house will serve the Lord.’
“The indisposition therefore of the Church of Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us from performing our duty to God; even as desire of retaining conformity with them could be no excuse if we did not perform that duty.
“Notwithstanding so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with them. For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel that they are in one respect enemies but in another beloved of God; in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate concerning sundry her gross and grievous abominations, yet touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ; and our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be his will) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distraction remain in any thing, but that we ‘all may with one heart and one mouth glorify God the Father of our Lord and Saviour,’ whose Church we are.”
Hugh may be part of Anglican diversity, but it’s the offensive part. Either Anglo-Catholics, or Papalists, for that matter can comment here… or not. He’s bringing nought but propoganda, and while I’m all for reasonable conversation, this sort of thing will change what T:19 is supposed to be. God Bless You, Hugh, I once was where you are, but you’re going to have to do better with this crowd.
Viva Il PaPa!
It’s interesting to think that Mr McCann’s Anglicanism, +Spong’s Anglicanism, ++Rowan’s Anglicanism, Kendall+’s Anglicanism, and +Iker’s Anglicanism can all exist under the great umbrella of Anglicanism, despite the diametrically opposed doctrinal viewpoints held by each. Sadly, since Anglicanism in and of itself has no authority mechanism to resolve such disputes with anything resembling finality, the only alternative is to split (and keep on splitting as new unresolvable differences arise).
I finally had to ask myself: “is this what Christ intended for his Church?”