Senior Church of England bishops have held secret talks with Vatican officials to discuss the crisis in the Anglican communion over gays and women bishops.
They met senior advisers of the Pope in an attempt to build closer ties with the Roman Catholic Church, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was not told of the talks and the disclosure will be a fresh blow to his efforts to prevent a major split in the Church of England.
In highly confidential discussions, a group of conservative bishops expressed their dismay at the liberal direction of the Church of England and their fear for its future.
WOW! This is big news. Although I am Orthodox, I find this incredibly encouraging.
ICXC
John
You mean….Straight people in the Anglican Communion have Secret Meetings too?! Cool!
Note to Rowan – maybe you’ve indulged the theological progressives long enough. Maybe it’s time to move back toward the center?
[portion deleted]
It is very interesting how the Anglican “crisis over gays” has turned in the past couple of weeks into a “crisis over gays and women.” I wonder how those in the mainstream among US evangelicals, as exemplified by the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and South Carolina, feel about having their convictions about women’s ordination lumped in with support of non-celibate homosexual relationships. I also wonder how mainstream straight Episcopal women feel about having themselves lumped in with gay men as the alleged beneficiaries of liberal politically-correct affirmative action programs that ignore their true lack of qualifications for church office. I thought it was odd that my diocese would not let women serve on vestries or in the diocesan convention until 1970, but I find it even odder that we are still arguing over women in positions of authority 38 years later.
Dale,
Maybe the odd thing is that “mainstream straight Episcopal women feel about having themselves lumped in with gay men as the alleged beneficiaries of liberal politically-correct affirmative action programs that ignore their true lack of qualifications for church office” is dead on correct. Perhaps, in hindsight, not a Holy Spirit guided idea?
How can these bishops compromise differences with Rome (such as papal infallibility, marian doctrine) so as not to compromise on WO or Gay ordination?
I don’t get it.
So some of you have just discovered that there’s still (gasp!) disagreement over this issue?
[I removed a justified complaint about another comment, which has now been edited — elfgirl]
#6 I guess in a similar sort of way that US Anglo Catholics can compromise over the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with more Reformed folks in GAFCON.
How many Episcopal Bishops “Poped” last year?
Not a moment too soon, as far as I am concerned. #6 A great many British Anglo-Catholics share Rome’s Marian doctrines, and are quite prepared to swallow papal infallibility as defined by Vatican II (you should get out more). It’s a great deal less offensive than going down the road of TEC and living with the likes of #4. If we don’t go together, I’m going alone.
What a funny coincidence, #9 – looking forward to seeing you there!
Come on over #9 and #10, the swim was refreshing and the welcome on the other side was heartfelt.
Dale,
I am not Roman Catholic. That said, your implicit comparison of Pope Benedict XVI and the Holy See to the Taliban is deeply offensive.
ICXC
John
[i]Dale’s comment has been edited. We agree it was inappropriate, inflammatory & offensive. But any further discussion of that is now off topic[/i]
armbands at the ready here…….
In their unilateral actions that contradicted their signatures and vocal agreements, his passive-aggressive actions over the last five years, and in hers ignoring canon law, TEC, the ACoC, the ABC and KJS have acted with ‘dictatorial’ powers or the equivalent of papal authority. The GAFCON movement goal is to restore concilliar church governance to preserve and define doctrine and to enact discipline – as well as for the fellowship and unity in the Spirit in the bond of peace at GAFCON that all were so delighted to find…that is impossible when agendites and unbelievers are in roles of leadership.
[blockquote]In their unilateral actions that contradicted their signatures and vocal agreements, his passive-aggressive actions over the last five years, and in hers ignoring canon law, TEC, the ACoC, the ABC and KJS have acted with ‘dictatorial’ powers or [b]the equivalent of papal authority[/b].[/blockquote]
They have claimed authority/power that no pope would ever dream of claiming – distorting Scripture, sanctifying sin, attempting to ordain women.
I shall remind the company that the reason given in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis for only ordaining men boils down not to “women are yucky”, “women are inferior”, or “we don’t want to have to design chasubles to keep someone’s butt from looking big”, but to “the Church has no authority to do this”, just as “the Church has no authority to say Mass with angel food cake and Courvoisier Napoleon.”
Justinmartyr and Austin (## 6 & 9) raise an interesting question. What exactly is the reason these (I assume self-identified Anglo-Catholic) bishops are meeting w/ Rome now? Only those who adhere to the teachings of the RC Church can reasonably expect these talks to lead anywhere. And if they so believe, why haven’t they come over already? It’s not as though they haven’t seen, for quite some time, the way things would inevitably develop in the CofE. Do they wish to come to Rome as a body in order to maintain (along the lines of the 1980 Pastoral Provision for the “Anglican Use,†which has been rather successful in the U.S.) an Anglican identity and liturgical tradition? Possibly, but I’m aware of a number of Anglo-Catholic parishes in England where the liturgy is already Roman rather than BCP. So the Anglican liturgy and ethos to be preserved were they to move to Rome would be rather thin on the ground.
I do not wish to imply that all of these bishops (and their flocks) should not be welcomed with open arms if their move is sincere. I’m simply intrigued by the unanswered questions.
RE: “I wonder how those in the mainstream among US evangelicals, as exemplified by the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and South Carolina, feel about having their convictions about women’s ordination lumped in with support of non-celibate homosexual relationships.”
Those in the mainstream among US evangelicals in South Carolina understand that Anglo-Catholics put the two together, and it doesn’t really bother them, even while they disagree with the base theology that ACs use in those matters. We’re not easily offended, having dealt with TEC over the past five years.
What those in the mainstream among US evangelicals in South Carolina care about is that their brother and sisters in Anglo-Catholicism have protection in the COE so that they can continue their godly ministry.
What those in the mainstream among US evangelicals in South Carolina care about is that those Anglo-Catholic clergy and bishops [i]aren’t treated the way TEC treated Anglo-Catholic clergy and bishops[/i].
Perhaps they are asking for advice and counsel from Rome regarding structure and doctrine…with the goal that the Anglican church might be restored to good graces with both Rome and the Orthodox?
What would have to be put on the table and laid at the Cross for the three to be in communion again?
That is, *brought to* the table and laid at the Cross *by all three* to restore communion?
#17
This is a question that we Romans have been thinking about for a while too. I think if an Anglican Rite Catholic Church in communion with Rome is created for traditionalist Anglo-Catholics (from CoE, TAC, Continuum, etc.), one of the first tasks that the Pope should set for the Synod of the church is to draw up an agreed common liturgy and liturgical books for that body. As you said there is a lot of liturgical variance between the different Anglo-Catholic groups ranging from the highest of the high (Knott Missal) to the relatively low (bog-standard Novus Ordo). Personally I would like to see the Knott Missal adopted in such circumstances and the accompanying body of liturgical literature, or perhaps adoption of the Sarum Use in some form.
Good point, GA/FL (## 19 & 20). If this is the purpose of the talks, it would be even more of a blow to the current Anglican establishment, I would think. In other words, rather than this or that Anglican individual or group of individuals becoming RC—which would leave the current Anglican establishment a partner in ecumenical dialogue—such a summit could lead to Anglicans still in viable dialogue with RCs & the Orthodox and those who are not. But my guess is that Rome would not want to be a party to that kind of division. I hate to say it, but it seems the Anglican Communion is capable of sundering itself into factions on its own w/o the involvement of Rome or Constantinople, though I pray such division doesn’t happen.
Amen, Sarah!
The distinguishing factor in the GAFCON movement is unity and brotherly/sisterly love and concern for one another’s beliefs and values – NOT acting like petit popes and popettes…not doing as the apostate Western province leadership has done, nor claiming, as Conor pointed out, powers no Catholic Pope or Council would claim, “distorting (or disregarding!) Scripture, sanctifying sin, attempting to ordain women (as well as adulterous, promiscuous, homosexuals, pro-choice, unbelievers, idolators, syncretists, social/political agendites, alcoholics).”
Clergy and laity who are practicing sin and unrepentant, are compromised in their faith and spiritual/personal lives are spiritually blind whatever their theological or church credentials.
Sin is whatever departs from Scripture and God’s design and is always harmful and always leads to blindness – Proverbs 4) and cannot discern spiritual matters, preach the Gospel or enact discipline or even love rightly in the church or in their homes or within their own soul. God decreed the Faith to be practiced in grave and careful accountability (Ephesians 5:21 and James 5:16) and bearing with one another, in the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace…but it all centers on Jesus Christ, Lord of His Church.
What the attendees found at GAFCON was the kind of respectful reverent love for one another, authenticity, honesty, openness, love for Jesus our Lord, that has been so horribly lacking in the Western rabidly political agenda driven, Scripture and Faith distorting perverting synods and general conferences. It was the REAL Faith, not the faux religion they had endured back home, at gatherings of the HoB/D and AC.
I pray the GAFCON movement will continue – not blinking, not giving an inch – keeping their prayerfully hard-won unity and the Faith intact and alive through the CoE Synod and Lambeth and are able to bring about the much-needed reform and real true to the core complete restoration of the Anglican Church/Communion.
Did these, yet unnamed bishops, ever confer with other Primates in the Anglican Communion. Have they had any discussions with the bishops involved in GAFCON? These may be rhetorical questions, as the slant of the articles indicates that, in all likelihood, these bishops are Anglo-Catholic and are not interested in anything but going to Rome. If most, or all, of the Anglo-Catholics abandon the C of E, the remaining Evangelicals will have to make up their minds pretty soon to either go or get off the pot. Could we see the Evangelicals separate and align with GAFCON? Are we beginning to hear the death-rattle of Anglican Comprehensiveness?
#17. Why have they not gone yet? It’s a question I often ask myself (of myself). For me, partly it’s the hope of a corporate reunion, even of only a part of Anglicanism rather than the whole. This was, after all supposed to be part of the ecumenical agenda that the liberals preached loudly and then completely scuppered. But some of us really believed it and think it would be a far more poweful witness to the unity of the church for a body of Anglicans to be received together. In 1992, the Roman bishops discouraged this possibility to the irritation, apparently, of Cardinal Ratzinger.
Then there is the cultural thing–being part of a group of people with habits, mores, sense of humour, and history that is shared and quite special. Angl-Catholics have bonded in adversity and have a srong affection for one another (when not overcome by the cattiness that has tinged the movement). Some still feel that the Romans are “foreign” and cling to the Englishness of the CoE, but that seems to be fading.
Of course, some do have theological objections to various Roman positions and may never be reconciled. We all know the bugbears, different people choke on different ones. But compared to the gulf between us and liberal secularism, these differences seem like quibbles.
And then there is the liturgical and aesthetic. The sheer ghastliness, ugliness, and impersonality of much RC worship needs no review. For some of us, as for many traditional Roman Catholics, the current order seems hardly recognisable as Catholic. One has great hopes for improvement under the current Pope.
And inertia, lack of courage, and fear of the unkhnown.
That’s my list; I’m sure there are others. But, for me, the end of the road is this year. I hope the Anglican rump becomes a vibrant and successful Evangelical Protestant body, but that body will have no place for me.
How sad that some see new life and hope for reform and restoration of Anglicanism and some, sadly, only see ‘Anglican rumps’. What we see and focus on comes through our own mental filters and lenses.
I wonder if these bishops will try to steal their diocesan property for Rome like our former TEC bishops.
Prolly depends on if the deeds are titled to the name of the parish, BfT19, and the laws of the country don’t claim the property as that of the State Church . . . ; > )
But then . . . you already knew that.
Thank God we live in America! ; > )
[blockquote]I wonder if these bishops will try to steal their diocesan property for Rome like our former TEC bishops.[/blockquote]
As a Catholic let me just say that this is a mind-blowingly ironic statement.
A good number of COE Anglo Catholics believe they are already part of the historic catholic church of England. They look for corporate reunion but have historically felt that their church (and by that they mean the Anglican church in England) is as catholic as any other in Christendom. When I was confirmed in the 80s, all the priests I knew – some more liberal and some more conservative believed the COE simply is the historic catholic church in England.
Whatever you think of the plausibility of such claims they have been commonly held by many Anglo Catholics in England. Of course, women’s ordination and consecration (if such goes ahead) throw, for Anglo Catholics, the whole sacramental basis of the life of the church into question.
driver8,
You raise some good points. Article XXXVII states that …The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England. Although the title of this particular Article is [i] Of the Civil Magistrates [/i] could one not infer that the underlying belief was that the C of E is, in fact, the historic Catholick Church of England? Anglo-Catholics are not the only ones opposed to women’s ordination and consecration as bishops. There are many evangelicals who oppose this.
What’s to discuss? So far as Rome is concerned, these guys are laymen.
Lapinbizarre (#32),
Perhaps, but I don’t think even cautious, conservative Catholic theologians would claim that Pius XIII’s Apostolicae curae expresses infallible teaching. (And that is the only official papal pronouncement on the subject of which I’m aware.) Also, black-and-white conclusions becomes a bit grey when we see such gestures as Paul VI removing his episcopal ring and placing it on the finger of Michael Ramsey, 100th Apb of Canterbury.
Only formal ex cathedra pronouncements on doctrine are supposedly infallible, so Apostolicae curae (Leo XIII – we’re not quite that far up in the Piuses) could be reversed, Monksgate, but do you think that a conservative Vatican (lot of water under the bridge since the Montini/Ramsay days) would remotely consider recognizing, in however conditional and circumscribed a form, the orders of a communion, many of whose member provinces are now ordaining women priests and some female bishops? It’s difficult to conceive of any Vatican sheep/goat approach that could effectively and totally divide the basic orders, as distinct from the sex, of the two groups.
Conor (#29), thank you for some needed perspective. 😉
#33
The problem with regards to Anglicans ideas vis a vis Apostolicae Curae is that there is a tendency to think of Holy Orders in strictly mechanical, Augustinian terms. It is often thought that Rome takes the same approach but in actuality there is a strong Cyprianic strain within Catholic thinking on the matter. As a result whilst Utrecht Union orders were originally held to be valid but illicit by Rome (as there was no defect in form and intention), subsequent assent to the Bonn Agreement, the ordination of women and the blessing of same sex unions (whilst retaining the same ordinals), means that whilst no formal declaration of nullity has been issued by Rome, at the top level, UU orders are now deemed to almost certainly be invalid or in the process of becoming so (because there now is a defect in form and intention). The exception being the PNCC (who seceded from the UU in 2003 over WO and SS), who are regarded by Rome as occupying a position akin to the Orthodox.
Re: # 33, 34,
Well, that depends. Most Catholics would consider the former Cardinal Ratzinger a “cautious, conservative Catholic theologian,” but,
“But on June 29, 1998, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger changed all that. On that date, he issued a “doctrinal commentary” to accompany Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, which established penalties in canon law for failure to accept “definitive teaching.” Ratzinger’s commentary listed Leo XIII’s apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, declaring Anglican orders to be “absolutely null and utterly void,” as one of the irreversible teachings to which Roman Catholics must give firm-and definitive assent.”
see:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_36_35/ai_55553289
(of course, the author of this article, as befits something published in the far-out “National Catholic Reporter” devotes the rest of his article to trying to discredit the Cardinal’s statement, citing a book that is replete with historical errors by the liberal Catholic ecumenist Fr. Georges Tavard, and the 1960s/70s books on Anglican Orders — well worth reading, actually — by the former ECUSA priest and since 1968 RC priest Fr. John Jay Hughes — but, hey, Ratzinger is now pope, and Tavard’s and Hughes’ views have been rejected by Rome).
And I append for your interest a portion of an e-mail that “one of those bishops” who recently visited Rome and the CDF sent to me:
“I agree that a sense of the national Church has a particular resonance with being the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the land. This sense has been vigorously adopted by many Evangelicals in England. Most Anglo-Catholics have moved distinctly from a Cyprianic ecclesiology (serving the ‘branch theory’ well) to a sense of being a sawn-off part of the Western patriarchate. The beginnings of this shift can be traced back to the 1920s (though the branch theory was still well and alive until quite recently) and became absolutely mainstream Anglo-Catholic by the time of the ARCIC process and the visit of JPII to England in 1982. Hence the very deliberate way in which, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on pastoral context, English Anglo-Catholics adopted Missa Normativa and the English version of the Divine Office.”
#34
The reversal of Apostolicae Curae would be unlikely even in the best of circumstances (unless you had a situation of wholesale participation of Orthodox or PNCC bishops in all Anglican ordinations and episcopal consecrations in the future, which I think we can safely say is never going to happen). The only circumstance in which I can see a partial reversal of the Bull is in the event of the creation of an Anglican Rite/Use Catholic Church in communion with Rome, consisting of unconditionally/conditionally ordained/consecrated “former Anglican” clergy. In such circumstances Rome, wholly assured of the validity of these orders (having conferred them herself or by an church in communion with her), could declare the Anglican orders of that body to be both valid and licit and by extension the sacraments of that body.
I agree w/ you Lapinbizarre. Vatican recognition of Anglican holy orders considered as a whole is so unlikely these days as to be beyond discussion, I suspect. Still, there are those Anglo-Catholic clergy who were *very* careful about who ordained them.
Thanks Dr. Tighe (#37). I wasn’t aware of Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 statement and was rather hoping someone would chime in w/ more information on the issue. Reading comments on TitusOneNine can be quite an education!
This link contains the text of the CDF’s commentary being referenced above: http://www.adoremus.org/RatCom1098.html
The key citation: “With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations….”
CONGRATULATIONS!
BY COMPLAINING ABOUT ONE OF MY COMMENTS, YOU GOT IT DELETED. HOWEVER, COMMENTS SUGGESTING THAT I HAD COMPARED THE HOLY SEE TO THE TALIBAN (WHICH I DID NOT DO) WERE LEFT INTACT.
SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ONE OF THE VERY LAST SURVIVING ANGLICAN FORUMS THAT WELCOMED A GENUINE DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT HAS FINALLY SUCCUMBED, YOU HAVE GOT YOUR WISH! LIKE THE LATE RICHARD NIXON, YOU WON’T HAVE ME TO KICK AROUNG ANY MORE.