Many of those who are not attending Lambeth are in Jerusalem this week for an alternative meeting, to discuss how they see the way forward. The parallel meetings are a clear manifestation that the bonds of communion have broken down. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not in Jerusalem, and is not welcome there. The breach appears irreparable and therefore the Anglican Communion’s days as a global community centred in Canterbury are numbered.
That is a sadness for those, like myself, who have affection for the Anglican sensibility. But sensibilities are not doctrines, and it cannot be the case that members of the same communion can hold directly contradictory views on matters of grave importance. The Canadian and American proponents of same-sex marriages are arguing that homosexual acts can be morally good, and even sacramental. The traditional Christian view is that such acts are sinful. That is a gap that cannot be bridged: Either one holds to the ancient and constant teaching of the Christian Church, or one rejects it in favour of a different position. It cannot be that both views exist side-by-side as equally acceptable options.
It is not a disagreement only about sexual morality. It goes deeper than that, to what status the ancient and apostolic tradition has in the Church today. There can be no doubt that the blessing of homosexual relationships is entirely novel and in contradiction to the Christian tradition. So if that tradition no longer holds, it raises questions about the apostolicity of those communities which have abandoned it.
An additional sadness for Catholic and Orthodox Christians is that if the Anglican Communion embraces the path of doctrinal innovation, they will be closing the door on closer ecumenical relations. By unilaterally choosing to do what Catholics and Orthodox have always taught is outside our common tradition, they would be choosing the path of division.
[i]There will be other archbishops after Dr. Williams, but it seems likely now that none will preside over a global communion.[/i]
A truly sobering epitaph.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
[blockquote]But sensibilities are not doctrines, and it cannot be the case that members of the same communion can hold directly contradictory views on matters of grave importance. The Canadian and American proponents of same-sex marriages are arguing that homosexual acts can be morally good, and even sacramental. The traditional Christian view is that such acts are sinful. That is a gap that cannot be bridged: Either one holds to the ancient and constant teaching of the Christian Church, or one rejects it in favour of a different position.[/blockquote]
Right on target. How can the AC hold together then? What is the point in a communion that says mutually contradictiory beliefs are the official position of the communion? Of what point is the covenant (see above) if both can sign it and claim that it affirms their position or does not exclude one or the other?
Jeremy’s assessment that the epitaph is “truly sobering” is also a reminder that Rowan William’s consistent failure to exercise the moral authority of his office has brought the Communion (such as it is) to this point. This brilliant man has presided over the decline and perhaps destruction of what could have been a bright shining light in the firmament. Truly sobering indeed.
Matt Kennedy’s comments at Stand Firm are very good.
I appreciate having Fr. de Souza’s perspective. It’s a clear and thoughtful article, and I’m touched by his evident affection for Anglicanism and sadness at the passing of what has been.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury is not in Jerusalem, and is not welcome there. ”
Does anyone know was the Archbishop invited and declined to attend or was he not invited?
See #2: At this very point we may see the language of cognition and the language of affect come in direct conflict. The language of cognition tells us that two contrary elements cannot occupy the same space. The language of affect say that two such contraries, and more, can exist together because the distinction – how one FEELS about these contraries – need not provoke exclusivity. The words stay the same; the meaning is utterly different. Larry