Thursday, 31 July 2008

Lambeth: Orombi attacks Williams

Updated Friday morning
The full article in The Times by Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi can be read at The Church cannot heal this crisis of betrayal.

And Ruth Gledhill writes about it: Rowan Williams betrayed churches over gay bishop, says African leader

Ruth Gledhill reports: Lambeth Diary: Rowan accused of ‘betrayal’

In a comment piece in tomorrow’s Times, the Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, will accuse the Arcbishop of Canterbury of a betrayal at the very deepest level. He will argue that even the Pope is elected by his peers, but Dr Williams in his office is little better than a remnant of colonialism.

Also, in The Times Cardinal Kasper is reported to have been very negative, see Catholic-Anglican relations reach new low over women bishops

The full text of this is now available in English at Zenit Cardinal Kasper to Anglican Communion

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 2:24pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Lambeth Conference 2008
Comments

a note to Simon: You might wish to remind people that David Stancliffe and Tom Wright wrote a joint answer to Cardinal Kasper's polemic against women bishops. Also note that the Anglican Communion has had women priests for more than 30 years and women bishops for almost as long.

Simon adds:

Yes, and here is the link

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20060721kasper.cfm?doc=126

Posted by: Sara MacVane on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 2:41pm BST

The link to Orombi's September 2007 "so much money" interview, which I just posted to Ms Gledhill's blog, seems, for some reason or other, to be "down". Anyone know where else it might be found?

http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm/2007/9/9/Archbishop-Henry-Orombi

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 2:57pm BST

How one goes from "absolutely null and utterly void" to the cardinal's loss of "hope for recognition of Anglican orders" is a mystery to me.

Posted by: Davis d'Ambly on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 3:10pm BST

If this is true, where will it leave Tom Wright's ringing endorsement of +Orombi in his 'authority of the bible' talk? Thoughts of eggs come to mind.

Posted by: john on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 3:44pm BST

Point of information: how are bishops chosen in Uganda?

Posted by: Doxy on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 4:14pm BST

Is this person for real? How can Gays and 'Lebians' [her spelling, not mine] be equated with people actively committing bodily assault be taken seriously? Obviously one of the those "Fleet Street" sensationalists one hears about occasionally in the states, that command as about as much respect as our supermarket tabloids.

And who appoints Archbishop Orombi? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle....or a spoiled child whining because they didn't get there way, but wouldn't help themselves to attend, 'cause they might have to listen to something/somebody that they didn't want to hear from.

Absolute nonsense.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 5:04pm BST

"The Roman Catholic Church has finally ended all hope that Anglican priestly orders will ever be recognised as valid."

Who cares?

In my smallish city, the RC priest, the two Lutheran pastors, three Episcopal priests, a Prebyterian minister, a Mennonite minister, and assorted Methodists have a text study group that meets to talk about upcoming Sunday lessons. We get on well and feed each other and the validity of each others' orders doesn't come up.

In the broader religious community, these same people meet with other Christians, as well as people from the local mosque and synagogue in an Interfaith group that initiated a project last year to offer thermal shelter to the homeless of our town who can't or won't go to the Sally Army. Nobody talked about validity of orders.

We can do valuable ecumenical and interfaith work without hashing out things like validity or orders or apoltolic succession! And, BTW, the text study group includes me, a Presby woman minister and an RC lay woman, as well as a bunch of men. Don;t tell Rome.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 5:33pm BST

lapin the link works for me.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 5:34pm BST

Really what is this 'recognion of orders' stuff (about) ? I have no trouble with my own, or anyone else's 'orders'.

And yes, some ministries or bits of ministry do seem nul or void (the Cardinal's latest utterances don't do much for me !), but entire minisstries over years and years ?

Even the whiskey priest's ministry wasn't nulland void ! (Greene)

But each act of ministry either works for me or not. But may work for you ( that sermon I ahted and you loved ...). I don't seen the credentials of the 'minister' as at all relevant-- when I collect my bagels, they are either fresh and delish (or not) --the pedegree of the baker, -who he studied with, who recommended / ordained him--- really makes no difference to me. Same at church , temple or shul !

Just don't give me stale words or empty gestures..

Posted by: Treebeard on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 5:49pm BST

Thanks Simon. Odd, because I've tried without success to access the interview at two separate locations, but eight other Anglican TV Orombi videos come up without hitch. Good job I'm not paranoid!

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 6:19pm BST

Well, Simon, it didn't work for me in Safari or Firefox and they have both been recently updated.

Posted by: susan hedges on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 6:28pm BST

They've been saying the same thing for 30 years and the dialogue still rolls on.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 6:35pm BST

Cynthia,

I agree on one level: who cares? Especially, Anglicans simply don't need this pathetic 'what will the Pope say' attitude? As for practical cooperation, what you say is heartening. Even more heartening is when people of different denominations take communion together. As you will know (I assume you're American), TEC offers this to all Christians (and sometimes more) and so does the C of E (sometimes restricted to all baptised). What great and glorious churches they are! No doubt, the American Presbyterian Church is to be included in their number. On their side, there are certainly RC priests in the US and the UK who do this - and certainly Anglicans who just take communion with them. The European Continent is very relaxed about this - and there is nothing at all the Pope can do. As for the Orthodox Church, in many years of going to Greek churches, I can say that it's only once been an issue. Church hierarchies - especially the RC one - are very, very out of touch with most of their priests and practically all of their laity on this. Constantly, in practice, the walls come tumbling down.

Posted by: john on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 8:00pm BST

"The Roman Catholic Church has finally ended all hope that Anglican priestly orders will ever be recognised as valid." {*}

Well, as of long-ago Friday night, everyone (except perhaps a few women) had finally lost all hope that a certain carpenter from Nazareth would be recognized as messiah, too?

{*} Actually, I'm now noticing the phrase "ended all hope": sounds like a CHOICE by the (hierarchy of the) RCC, does it not? Lord have mercy...

Posted by: JCF on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 8:12pm BST

"They've been saying the same thing for 30 years and the dialogue still rolls on."

Saying the same thing for 30 years constitutes "dialogue"?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 9:06pm BST

It's hard to image anyone more annoying, deceptive and dangerous than +Orombi of Uganda...+Henri's fogged up spiritual/emotional world view is especially noticeable when attacking the endlessly "good intentioned" Archbishop of Canterbury...a "first amongst equals" who often and wrongly accepts +Orombi's point of view as genuine and his aggressivenes honorable.

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 9:37pm BST

The Archbishop of Uganda seems rather to have missed the point of the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. No one pretends that it has any legitimacy as the chief executive of the Communion. It deliberately does not have any such authority, and does not and should not pretend that it does. If Canterbury were elected by some wider process then that would give it a legitimacy and authority -- but then it would not be properly Anglican.

Posted by: Simon Kershaw on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 9:46pm BST

There was a discussion similar to this one about a week ago, and I'll say once again that "validity" has ceased to worry or interest me. The trouble is, as Fr. Robert Capon has said in his wonderful books, that human beings hanker after systems, whereby they can be in control, instead of God - in control of who's "in" and who's "out, who's right and who's wrong, who are the winners and who are the losers. But the Kingdom which Jesus came to proclaim is not about systems, debits, or credits, but all about grace. He showed very little interest in people with the correct pedigree.
OFW

Posted by: Old Father William on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 10:41pm BST

As you will know (I assume you're American), TEC offers this to all Christians (and sometimes more) and so does the C of E (sometimes restricted to all baptised). What great and glorious churches they are!

I am a little confused John. Surely Christians become so by virtue of baptism?

Posted by: Neil on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 11:10pm BST

Re the Anglican TV interview, let me rephrase, Simon. The link goes to the appropriate page for the September 2007 interview, but will not bring up the video. The screen remains blank. Does the video play on your pc?

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 1:34am BST

And don't forget--it may be the Roman or Orthodox hierarchy who doesn't want women (who knows what change that'll bring?), but the lower you go, you may get a different answer.

I think Cardinal Kasper, no matter how brilliant a man he is (and I have met him and seen this for myself), is only "doing his job" so to speak, but I wonder how he and other Curial officials would benefit from a more gender-balanced approach to solving pastoral questions. The Roman Church only has one woman, Dr. Mary Ann Glendon, heading a high-level advisory panel (and who happens to be the American ambassador to the Vatican). QED.

Posted by: Ren Aguila on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 3:29am BST

If ARCIC is to continue legitimately I want women bishops on it....and lay reprs ( as Anglicanism is not excluisvely run by bishops but Synodical)it is not genuine dialogue if the women are kept at home.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 7:43am BST

In the context of another species of colonialism, I once came across a piece which said in effect that the mores of the old colonial power persist longer in the land of the once colonized than they do in the metropole. If the Bishop of Uganda and his ilk truly seek a post-colonial AC, then they had best start questioning the Victorian values that underpin this and other, similar criticisms we have heard voiced at Conference regarding sexuality. The “remnant of imperial colonialism” no longer resides in the 'Mother Country'. I say Amen to a post-colonial scenario but it will tend to cut both ways.

Posted by: orfanum on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 7:57am BST

"Point of information: how are bishops chosen in Uganda?" -- Doxy

I'd like to know, too.

Posted by: Peter of Westminster on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 8:42am BST

Marvellous ! Imust llook out for this writer.

'There was a discussion similar to this one about a week ago, and I'll say once again that "validity" has ceased to worry or interest me. The trouble is, as Fr. Robert Capon ...'
OFW

Posted by: Old Father William on Thursday, 31 July 2008 at 10:41pm

Posted by: Treebeard on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 10:34am BST

Robert Ian Williams, why would you, as a newly-minted Roman Catholic, want women bishops on the ARCIC Commission. Surely your Holy Father would not permit such a departure from Roman Order?

Does your local bishop know what you are advocating on this site?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 10:40am BST

Cardinal Kasper's remark about recognition of Anglican orders seems to have flown over a lot of people's heads. Once again, what many people don't seem to realize is that Apostolicae Curae, the papal statement where Anglican orders were declared "utterly null and void", only describes the Roman view as of 1896, when the statement was made.

A number of things have changed since then. First and foremost, in 1931 the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics in the Union of Utrecht signed the Bonn Agreement establishing full communion. Ever since, Old Catholic bishops have participated (as a matter of course due to communion, not by forethought regarding Rome) in Anglican ordinations of bishops. Under a typical Roman understanding of orders, this would potentially restore a valid line of succession to any Anglican bishop receiving such an ordination. Furthermore, our Anglican rites of ordination *as they are today* are sufficient to transmit such valid orders to other Anglicans.

Since multiple bishops participate in ordinations of other bishops, it's a matter of time before all bishops have that Old Catholic line of succession, which Rome regards as valid. Some jokingly refer to it as the "Dutch Touch".

Another change is prevalent Roman ideas of how the succession "works". The so-called "pipeline theory" on which Apostolicae Curae is apparently largely based is now very wobbly, since no one can trace their line of succession back further than the 16th century with any certainty, not even the Pope himself. The ascendant view is that even a broken or damaged line of succession can be healed by restoring true apostolic tradition, i.e. that the teachings become more important than the mere mechanical laying on of hands and the right hocus pocus.

Thus there has indeed been an ongoing reappraisal within the Roman Catholic Church of our orders. This has been sufficient for Rome to start accepting Anglican priests who convert by consecrating them *conditionally*, that is, they accept the possibility that our orders are in fact now valid. Previously that was never the case.

Having said all of that, I take Cardinal Kapser's words with a grain of salt: Women have been ordained to sacerdotal orders now for 30 years, as others have noted. Rome never broke off relations over it. Furthermore, Old Catholics and Rome have been in dialog ever since 1996, when the Old Catholics *also* began ordaining women to the priesthood, and nothing was ever said to my knowledge that Rome was breaking things off with them. Thus I wouldn't dismiss his words, but I would treat them with skepticism.

Posted by: Walsingham on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 10:44am BST

I stand corrected; Glendon is not a doctor.

And more importantly for some TEC feminists, she is a strong advocate of Rome's brand of complementarist feminism--one which is used, of course, to say that women just can't be ordained.

Posted by: Ren Aguila on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 11:08am BST

Walsingham is broadly correct, but Rome's ground for dismissing Anglican orders has shifted. The old "defect of intention" which featured in Apostolicae Curae was fairly swiftly sunk by Anglican scholars who pointed out that early pontificals lacked the formulae which Rome said were necessary. However, it has now re-appeared, on the grounds that, if women are ordained, then there is a defect of intention since Catholic orders cannot be conferred on a woman (a variant of William Oddy's "Anchovy Paste" argument which was used by some anti-OW Anglicans 25 years ago). So, whatever Anglican Bishops ordaining women may think they are doing, they can't be conferring Catholic order. But then, Rome has shifted its ground on this matter so often, we shouldn't be surprised. The bottom line is that there are those in Vatican dicasteries who don't in any circumstances want to recognise Anglican orders, full stop. Fr J J Hughes' book Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, now some 40 years old, is an absolute eye-opener in this respect.

Posted by: cryptogram on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 2:43pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.