The cardinal, he said, made it clear that because of the ordination of women “the status of the dialogue (between Catholics and Anglicans) will almost certainly change; nevertheless I rejoice in the cardinal’s opening paragraphs in which he speaks of his hope to remain in serious dialogue in search for full unity, so that the world may believe.”
“In spite of our apparently contradictory behavior,” Bishop Hill said, “Anglicans remain committed to the goal of full, visible unity.”
While telling the Anglicans that the Roman Catholic Church believes the ordination of women and the acceptance of homosexuality go against Scripture and tradition, Cardinal Kasper acknowledged that the Anglicans have acted out of a sincere desire to affirm the dignity of all people and to promote the full involvement of women in the life of the church.
Bishop Hill suggested that future Anglican-Catholic dialogues look at “the nature of the tradition of the faith down the ages.”
“I am sure the cardinal and I would agree that tradition must be in continuity with the apostolic faith in the deposit of the Scriptures, and also that tradition is nevertheless dynamic, led by the Spirit, and not mere historicism,” he said.
The question I now have is who is the official that could issue the official anglican position? I simply can’t imagine any thing said by the AC in any capacity as authoritative for the AC. By our own admission we have no authority and no one in authority.
Br. Michael, I agree. I believe the direction by Rome will now be toward the Catholic “wing” of the AC. I think Rome is going to make room for those who will submit to the authority that is stability and is reliable. We will see a gift for those who desire it in an Anglican formation of some kind. Yes, by all means, continue to search for the opportunity of unity but realize that it cannot be out of the context of the Faith as we have received it. That is not historicism. And post modernism cannot be the new canon either.
Has not the AB of C been told the Pope is Catholic?
“It could be, he said, that tradition never “really engaged with this question (of the role of women in the church) until relatively recently.”
This is a keen observation. History tells us that right doctrine most always comes from a presenting issue that causes disturbance because it is an unsettled manner. Historically, theologians “hash it out, putting forth various theories and ideas until a council and or a Pope makes a binding determination. The trouble is here that the churches are so divided now that there is no council that speaks for the whole church and the Pope speaks only for Roman Catholics. I think a serious look at Newman’s Doctrine of Development” could go a long way in helping us to find theolocial clarity if this were dicussed in the ARCIC meetings.
“It could be, he said, that tradition never “really engaged with this question (of the role of women in the church) until relatively recently.â€
It could, I suppose, just as it could be the case wrt SS or “polyamory” or bestiality. But for those in communion with Rome, the question of WO has been answered “irreformably” (i.e., unchangeably) in the papal document “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” of 22 May 1994, which reads, in its “operative” paragraphs as follows:
“Quamvis doctrina de ordinatione sacerdotali viris tantum reservanda constanti et universali Ecclesiae Traditione servetur atque Magisterio in recentioribus documentis firmiter doceatur, temporibus tamen nostris diversis in partibus disputabilis habetur, aut etiam Ecclesiae sententiae non admittendi mulieres ad ordinationem illam vis mere disciplinaris tribuitur.
Ut igitur omne dubium auferatur circa rem magni momenti, quae ad ipsam Ecclesiae divinam constitutionem pertinet, virtute ministerii Nostri confirmandi fratres (Luc. 22, 32), declaramus Ecclesiam facultatem nullatenus habere ordinationem sacerdotalem mulieribus conferendi, hancque sententiam ab omnibus Ecclesiae fidelibus esse definitive tenendam.”
Dr Tighe,
I confess that my one semester of Latin left me unable to completely translate your above reference, though I have read it in English previously. If I remember correctly, the phrasing was, ‘the church has no power to change,” or something to that effect. It becomes clear that TEC is incapable of understanding such a notion. TEC has no real notion of CHURCH, IMHO, which is why it, and the AC is doomed, and ought to be.
Re # 5
I am not Roman Catholic. However, giving credit where it’s is due, I think that’s one that we Orthodox would agree the Pope got right.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
“Roma locuta est, causa finita est.”
I’d like to add something wry but truth is it works for me.
Friendship????
What world do they live in??????
This ends the ARIC talks…..
This Lambeth brings many endings.
Archangelica, 200 years ago everybody thought that women’s ordination, the use of petit-fours and champagne at the Eucharist, and arson were settled matters.
Why are the second two closed?
“In spite of our apparently contradictory behavior,” Bishop Hill said, “Anglicans remain committed to the goal of full, visible unity.”
A man who says such things is at best deluded, at worst certifiable. “Although I enjoy seducing wide variety of women, I remain committed to the goal of faithful monogamous marriage.” “Although I enjoy eating the flesh of most animals, I remain committed to the goal of consistent vegetarianism.”
Anglicans cannot continue to do precisely what each faction chooses and expect to survive, let alone be taken seriously as an ecumenical partner.