"this is what happened to TEC, then Ecusa, at the last ACC meeting in Nottingham in 2005"

What IS Ruth's problem here? Just because SHE has changed her abbreviation in that time, doesn't mean the Episcopal Church has changed. Then, as now, the Episcopal Church includes member provinces apart from the US of A (ergo, "ECUSA" is not an appropriate abbreviation).

On-topic: that the Southern Cone DESERVES this slap-on-the-wrist (or worse) is inarguable. But that they'll actually receive? Especially w/ the Primates lurking about? I'll believe it when I see it! ;-/

"A conservative province in the Anglican Church faces 'punishment' this week for offering a safe haven to conservatives" - Ruth Gledhill, article in 'The Times' -

Whoever gave Ruth this news may be under the same impression that she has always had; about the actions of Gregory Venables in nurturing the puritanical element of the Communion under his wing.

Her enthusiastic brand of journalism - considering her own obvious bias towards the likes of Venables - has here enabled her to take a dim view of what she believes might be one of the results of the meeting, this week, of the Standing Committee of the ACC.

If, in fact, the expected schismatic arrival of the so-called 'Third Province' of Anglicanism in North America does get the 'No Way' treatment from the ACC - together with the prospective inhibition of Mr Venables - then it cannot, surely, be seen as what Ruth has called *punishment*. Perhaps it might rather be seen as an act of 'Due Process' - for both the Province and the Prelate concerned.

If you are going to "punish" Southern Cone, what about Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda?

Which ECUSA: The one ain New York or the one Bishop Wantland and Crew devised?

If the breakaway churches ask to be received back into the Anglican Communion in their new formation, how can they be rejected? And would their acceptance as a new entity within the Communion no amount to a healing of the split, and an agreement to live together amicably? In short, a happy ending.

The culture wars will continue to chug along within Anglicanism as they do, more mutedly, within Roman Catholicism. So will the progress of mature hermeneutics of bible and tradition, putting the bitter clashes of recent years into perspective.

If the new entity asks to remain in the Anglican Communion, is it not thereby admitting that the issues which bother it do not amount to articles by which the Church stands or falls?

I recommend that they be welcomed warmly back and encouraged to pursue their path in the spirit of charitable witness.

'What IS Ruth's problem here? Just because SHE has changed her abbreviation in that time, doesn't mean the Episcopal Church has changed. Then, as now, the Episcopal Church includes member provinces apart from the US of A (ergo, "ECUSA" is not an appropriate abbreviation).'

RG responds: Ecusa changed the way it wished to be referred to at the last GenCon. In referring to it as TEC I am simply respecting the wishes of GenCon as I understand them.

re Spirit of Vatican II's comment. my observations of the dissenters is that they will not tolerate being in the same room with those they have branded as heretics- I believe it is quite clear by now that their goal in staying within traditional Anglicanism is to "purify" it by expelling those who disagree with them. They are the antithesis of the welcome and generosity of spirit that I treasure in Anglicanism.

And "TEC" is inappropriate because there are Episcopal Churches in Scotland, the Philippines, etc, etc. So there's a choice between two equally inappropriate initialisms. She has to call it something!

Ruth and Geoff are both right about the name of the Episcopal Church. When it was ECUSA, we were shortchanging the fourteen other countries within the Church. Now that we are TEC, we are open to Geoff's objection. Anybody got any bright ideas?

I don't have a problem with TEC or ECUSA. I think we're now calling our diocese "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, USA," or something to that due effect.
Symantic Gymnastics!

I did think that TEC and the ACofC 's withdraw from the last ACC session was voluntary? It might have been suggested, and rather strongly but it was asked of us, not handed down. Maybe my memory is a bit soggy.

At the Nottingham meeting of the ACC there was an actual vote taken about the issue of US and Canadian participation in the proceedings and the vote was very narrowly in favour of exclusion. Had the North Americans all been voting, which they were not, the vote would presumably have gone the other way.

As to the naming issue, it seems to me that the unilateral adoption of TEC by the US-headquarted body without any qualification was an insensitive move. My Scottish friends certainly think so. Note that although I now do refer to TEC at times in TA articles, I have not changed the Category name from ECUSA, and I have no plan to do that.

My reports on the ACC Nottingham meeting may be of relevance here.

http://anglicansonline.org/news/articles/2005/acc13nottingham.html

http://anglicansonline.org/news/articles/2005/acc13nottingham2.html

For the umpteenth time, the name of the church has not been changed. An alternative name (The Episcopal Church) was adopted as the equivalent of its official name (Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America). Check out the Church's Constitution, folks.

The official constitutional name is still "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of American, also known as The Episcopal Church." The alternate designation was in sensitivity to our missions in dominantly RC countries where "protestant" was an issue, and our missions in any places that are not part of the USA. It marks no change in the doctrine, discipline, or worship of this constituent member of the Anglican Communion.

So, Simon, we voluntarily held back, which then allowed for us to be voted out. So, whether directly or indirectly (since both happened) our voluntary restraint was the reason for our nonparticipation.

Thus, one wonders what would come of such encouragement to the delegate from Southern Cone to withdraw, especially with regard to voting on a new parallel province within North America. It's only one vote, and yet....

Brother Williams, I share your concern about the African provinces and the institutions they support. At the same time, none of those has yet tried to absorb an existing diocesan structure. They've created new ones, certainly (whatever they might call them), but they haven't officially tried to take in an existing one. Of course, that could all change next week, depending on how their structures do or do not participate in the new work of the Common Cause Partnership.

Thanks BillyD for clarifying that!

Thank you, BillyD. And that change in the Constitution goes back to 1964/67, not the most recent General Convention. It was not meant as an act of insensitivity towards Scotland, etc., nor even primarily in the interests of recognizing the non-USA dioceses, but rather to allow for an official name that didn't contain the word "Protestant" -- which is what led to the unofficial though common ECUSA, in which people took advantage of the change with attention to rationale but not detail. (The change was made in the BCP in 1976/79). Dean Werner, then President of the House of Deputies, made a point about the international nature of TEC, but the usage goes back well before 2006!

Thank you Simon. I remembered something about us not voting and we were excluded. Here is the particular wording: "consequently endorses the Primates’ request that “in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference."

"If the breakaway churches ask to be received back into the Anglican Communion in their new formation, how can they be rejected? And would their acceptance as a new entity within the Communion no amount to a healing of the split, and an agreement to live together amicably? In short, a happy ending."

Whatever "Holiday Cheer" you've been imbibing, SpiritV2, I think I'd like some, please. ;-/

But is not the phrase "Breakaway Church" something of an oxymoron? (at least when the word "Church" is intended to mean "Body of Christ", in Communion)

The Southern Cone "dioceses" of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy and Fort Worth propose to 1) conduct their business out of TEC(USA)---does that help?---property, and 2) organize/propagate/propagandize the EXPANSION of their new "North American Province", by further recruitment (and theft) of additional TEC(USA) properties and members.

Let me put this in an ecumenical context, SpiritV2: in some localities, there are special (covenanted, or merely conventional) Episcopal/RC relationships (Thanks be to God.)

However, IF in such a locale, one or both of these TEC or RC judicatories, set up dedicated efforts to 1) repudiate the Christian faith of the other 2) intentionally recruit the members of the other (including making suggestions, if not promises, that they might be able to keep their current church properties), DON'T YOU THINK such actions might ***imperil*** the local TEC/RC covenant or conventional bond?

There's Christian Hope, SpiritV2. And then there's unthinking optimism. I think perhaps your "happy ending", above, comes from the latter.

TEC? PECUSA? Fiddling while Rome burns, anybody?

Name, smame. Confusions about particular references are fairly readily clear up in specific conversations. Meanwhile, RGs brand of partisan conservative journalism - rather too close to Fox News USA, methinks, for comfort, or mayB GConger? - deserves critical comment.

Anybody else tired of conservative believers like RG or GC trying deliberately to stir up clangy senses of alarm, pitting us against one another? If this were ordinary family life, we would all have learned by now to take auntie Ruth's dudgeon with more than a grain of restraint - as her agenda has been clearly acted out over time, and its standard effects in aiming to heighten tensions and split the family into factions is also so clear that almost nobody disputes the effect.

Personally, as a believer I would not mind at all if somebody somewhere at the Anglican tops - note plural dispersed global authorities - actually took significant time to speak against Venebles, Iker, Duncan, and their ilk. Just to take them to task for pursuing their conservative Anglican witness which reliably makes enemies for God out of every availble formerly big tent global Anglican friends for God in Anglican common worship.

The conservative views are not so much the problem per se as their standard categorical iterations against big tent life among believers, usually made via weaponizing doctrines-confessions.

The notion that a separate conservative Anglican tent will make for peace is way too simple-minded. Once such phenomena are recognized, two further steps can confidenly be anticipated. First, in the new separate rightwing Anglican tent, we will continue to hear weaponized prechments against all those who are outside the tent. Secondly, we will quickly hear clamors for other conservative and separate tents, all around.

Count on it. A funny way of seeking peace across big tent differences, then. Both Conger and Gledhill are smart enough to know better, hands down. So - what are they really up to as players and spin doctors?

For Jim Naughton:

How about The General Convention Church?

FWIW, IIRC, BillyD is correct -- legally it is PECUSA (aka TEC) without ever officially being ECUSA along the way (so many people objecting to the use of the word "Protestant" with its current associations -- OCICBW)

Simon, I believe the point is that the agreement of the Canadians & Americans (isn't Canada in North America as well? & then there is South America -- it seems that Humpty Dumpty was right about names) to refrain from that initial vote was voluntary.

Billy, people who still cannot grasp that we do not "appoint" our bishops can't really be expected to read our constitution.

>> Ruth and Geoff are both right about the name of the Episcopal Church. When it was ECUSA, we were shortchanging the fourteen other countries within the Church. Now that we are TEC, we are open to Geoff's objection. Anybody got any bright ideas? <<

Yes -- To respect the sensiticities, change the definite article into the indefinite article: "An Episcopal Church." ;-)

Seriously, I'd suggest "the United Episcopal Church" to reflect the overseas dioceses, but there's already an Anglican Continuum denomination called the United Episcopal Church of North America.

So how about "the [I hate the capitalized "The"; looks ridiculous, including in non-English languages, and sounds pretentious] Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and Beyond, otherwise known within its dioceses as the Episcopal Church."

Could acronym-ize it as either "the ECUSAB" or "the EC," depending on inter-Province or intra-Province context.

Prior Aelred:
FWIW, IIRC, BillyD is correct -- legally it is PECUSA (aka TEC) without ever officially being ECUSA along the way (so many people objecting to the use of the word "Protestant" with its current associations -- OCICBW)

Lay the blame, not at the feet of General Convention, but where it belongs: the Library of Congress.

C. 1979 the Library of Congress changed its subject heading for the Episcopal Church from PECUSA to ECUSA (when I arrived at Virginia Seminary in the fall of '81 the librarians were busily changing all the subject heading file cards from the former to the latter. My work study job was to help shift all the cards and card drawers to make place for the new ones.)

The acronym ECUSA was little (un?)known before that change.

How about the official incorporated name, "The Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society" -- that ought to offend practically everybody.

But surely the rub has been that everything has been set up to include new churches & nothing about excluding people has been part of the planning -- the fact is that people who don't want to part of the group have simply left ...

I read the article and blog splash of Ruth Gledhill and thought: 'Ooh, something to blog on', but realising there was nothing there and it would only feed the hungry monster machine I decided to follow up instead a comment that was attached to my Episcopal Cafe piece that said how I'd missed how transformative Alpha has been and relating directly to GAFCON.

Why are Protestants ashamed of the word Protestant?

The Protestant Episcopal Church should not just be the legal name , but the official name. It was so for the first 180 years.

Is there any truth in a story I heard many years ago? When American PECUSA missionaries went to Japan they tried to translate 'protestant episcopal' into Japanese to form the Protestant Episcopal Church of Japan. Protestant was tricky, because of the argumentative element, 'episcopal' was traced back to 'elder'. The nearest Japanese they came up with was 'Church of old men who fall out with each other of Japan'. This seemed to be a non-starter, so the Japanese outpost of PECUSA became 'The Holy Catholic Church of Japan'. I'd love this to be true, not least because of what is can teach us about the present state of things.

"Why are Protestants ashamed of the word Protestant?"

I don't know. Go ask a Protestant. Most Anglicans I know don't consider themselves Protestants in the same way that Baptists and Methodists are. I know you'll insist that we are, but then again you don't get to choose.

You might as well ask "Why are Roman Catholics ashamed of the word Roman?" There is an active subset of RC's who object strenuously to being called anything but just plain Catholic (and no, I'm not talking about Eastern Catholics).

"Why are Roman Catholics ashamed of the word Roman?"

LOL. I was going to say the same thing! Thing is, I get the feeling that for RIW, as for many RCs, Protestant simply means "doesn't accept the authority of the Pope." In that case, I am a Protestant, I guess, but so is the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Dan, I would have no problem with that. The representation of all orders in our governance is the glory of the Episcopal Church.

That was an interesting story, even if he best thing to come out of it was Poppy Tupper’s lovely piece on Japan!!

I guess we are not going to be told who gave Ruth this “lead” – to know this would give some useful insight into the tale – and we have to guess that the old maxim of two separate sources giving the story just the chance that its true was not in operation here.

Still, it gave Ruth the opportunity to say some interesting things and I’ll just pick up two things she said:
“If the Primates agree on action against the Southern Cone, conservatives are saying, then full-blown schism is inevitable.”

Putting aside a little voice asking how the full blown version of schism would look like compared to what we have – this sentence does capture the extraordinary level of threat flying around, and it is interesting where it is comes from – indeed where it always seems to come from.

With one half of their mouth conservatives clamour for discipline while with the other threatens disaster if that discipline should be turned on them. The American ultra-cons are determined to get their way and they are openly saying if they don’t then watch out!

She puts one threat so well in the on-line piece when she says
“Unless this new province is recognised as part of the Anglican family by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and the other 38 primates, it will in effect become a new Anglican church.”

Secondly she says:
“In a further indication that the liberals are winning the Anglican wars,”

Ruth and I must have been watching a different Church developing over the last few years. I am very much under the impression that the “liberals” have lost all the way down the line on the presenting issue – we may have a gay bishop – but in truth he has been isolated, cut off – even by his own Church. While on the broader issues gay people are now deeper in the closets than ever in the West and their lot is likely worse in the Global South than it was previously.

If this is winning then I would not like to taste defeat.

But I think I know what she is trying to say – I prefer Andrew Carey’s analysis – which I think says the liberals are not winning, rather the conservatives are throwing it all away.

On a positive note Ruth says Anglican wars (plural) and I applaud her there – but I haven’t seen her try to tell us about the several wars that are at play here and how they play out separately and also overlap. It would make a good blog entry – if not a significant article for T2 or some such. The oversimplification of the issues has led to some poor reporting.

Finally Jim Naughton says this at Episcopal café
“This isn't quite right. The Episcopal Church voluntarily refrained from voting at the Nottingham meeting at the request of the Primates. Had the Episcopal Church not voluntarily refrained, there is nothing anyone could have done to prohibit it from exercising its franchise.”

I’m not quite sure this is the full story.

My understanding was that Rowan Williams made it clear that he would not call the ACC if America attended as a voting delegation – makes the “voluntary” nature of what he says a little moot?

'Church of old men who fall out with each other of Japan'.

Ya know, when you think about the last 2000 years of Church history, everything that comes after the word "Church" in that phrase is pretty much redundant.

You chose the name Protestant Episcopal in 1787. Roman joined to Catholic was an invention of Protestants to belittle the Catholic Church. It was a term of abuse that stuck, like Mormon and Quaker.

So, Ruth has been, yet again, rather too enthusiastic in her doom-talk about what might happen at the Joint Standing Committee meeting of the ACC this week. It would appear that her fear of some sort of statement against the activities of Bp Venables and his crew - in inaugurating a new 'province' of the Anglican Communion in North America - has not eventuated.

Whether this is good for the Communion as a whole, or good for the USA and Canada, may prove to be a moot point. But the fact remains, Ruth, again, has been proved to be a scare-monger. However, I guess her tactics quite suit the re-Asserters, whose cause she undoubtedly supports.

Thank you Martin Reynolds, for your necessary contributions to the ongoing debate. It's good to know that not all journalists are anti-gay and anti-women's membership of our Church.

"Roman joined to Catholic was an invention of Protestants to belittle the Catholic Church. It was a term of abuse that stuck, like Mormon and Quaker."

Interesting theory. It doesn't explain, however, why "Roman" should be a popular part of the Church's name in languages whose cultures have never had much Protestant influence at all, such as Spanish or Portuguese. Or why the phrase exists in Latin.

"Roman" was officially added to the name of the RC Church at Vatican I.

If "Protestant" means not recognizing the papal claims, then indeed all of the Orthodox (including the non-Chalcedonians & the Great Church of the East [whom we are no longer allowed to call Nestorians]) are "Protestant". The C of E was developing some interesting dialogue with the so-called Jansenists (see the Council of Fierenze) until the French Revolution upset the apple cart.

Martin -- was Rowan really threatening not to call the ACC unless the Nordamericanos promised to abstain? Shame on him!

"You chose the name Protestant Episcopal in 1787."

My looks may be failing me RIW, but nevertheless, I wasn't even born until 1962. ;-/

I'd heard a similar story, Poppy, except that in my version the translation worked out to "Assembly of Combative Overlords," which also fits.

RIW, I call BS. Roman Catholic simply refers to a Catholic who adheres to Rome.

Robert I W: you'll be telling us that the word "Wales" is an offensive word for Cwmryu devised by the English next...

"the word "Wales" is an offensive word for Cwmryu devised by the English next..."

If my A/S serves me correctly, isn't it from 'wealh', 'foreigner'? There are plenty of 'welsh-' place names (usually small and local features) which are a long way east of Offa's Dyke, and presumably refer to their being used by strangers or non-locals?

Completely irrelevant I know, but...

Two comments--

As a footnote to the Prior, I think the corporate name is actually "The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society" (that is, the adjectives come in the other order)--and in fact the 815 used www.dfms.org early on (and it still works, I believe).

Mynsterpreost, "welsh" is certainly from "wealh," which does mean foreigner, as in, for example, "walnut," that is to say "the nut from south of the Alps," as opposed to the native hazelnut. But once the A-S types were actually in Britain, I believe it became specific to the increasingly-displaced native Britons. (I think Tolkien has an essay on this, including details about use of "wealh/Welsh" in the sense of "someone I can't talk to without a translator": but I'm not in the library at the moment to look it up.)

4 May 1535+ is, of course correct -- apologies for writing from memory (which is why most of my quotations are not quite right).

So the PB of whatever we are going to call the Episcopalians in the United States & the other churches still part of that parent organization which have not yet achieved independent status says that the possibility of saying or doing anything about the Southern Cone has not been part of the agenda of the meeting, what is going on?

The Catholic Church has always referred to its self as the catholic and Roman church, bur Roman Catholic is an invention of the English Protestants.

CYMRU is the name that Welsh prople prefer, as Welsh is a derivative of the Anglo-Saxon for foreigner. The Anglo-Saxons occupied eastern Britain, displaced the native people called them foreigners and the remnant fled westward to the hills and Brittany.

British derived languages survived in Cumbria and Cornwall. The original inhabitants of Scotland were British and displaced by the Saxons and the Scots from Ireland.

I don't know whether George Conger is guilty of wilful dishonesty or wishful thinking, but either way he's passing off his own authoritarian vision of a curial Anglicanism as though it bore a resemblance to reality.

He claims, in his article, that the membership list of the ACC is "controlled" by the Primates.

Fact is that the ACC makes the change which requires the validation of 2/3 of the Primates. Thus, it is utterly false to claim that either body "controls" the list.

Anyone know George?

Anyone care to offer an opinion on whether he's delusional or dishonest?

"The Catholic Church has always referred to its self as the catholic and Roman church, bur Roman Catholic is an invention of the English Protestants" - Robert I. Williams (R.C.) -

Robert, don't you think that this was rather clever of us: that we should put two and two together and call it the Roman Catholic Church? Which ever way one looks at it, that's what we, and everyone else - even the Pope - calls it.

It is the Church which is ruled from Rome - as opposed to the Churches that are 'ruled from' other places. e.g. Antioch, Constantinople, Moscow or Southern Cone. Each Church has it's distinctive characteristics.

The so-called 'Protestant' Church, to which you once belonged, is still part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostlic Church of Jesus Christ, and will remain so - despite the re-asserters, who want to leave it and start their own religion.

"The Catholic Church has always referred to its self as the catholic and Roman church"

And it is said there was once a headline in the Times of London that said "Storm in Channel, Europe Isolated", and the Americans think they're the only free people on the face of the Earth and the inventors of democracy, and I'm sure that every Empire that ever existed thought itself to be the be all and end all. No difference with a religious Empire. Rome can consider itself the catholic church all it wants to, just like the Evangelicals can think themselves the only True Christians, but that just gives the rest of us something to laugh at. Don't worry, we won't make a sound in the Kingdom, so you won't be forced to acknowledge the painful fact you aren't the only ones there. Of course, since neither the Romans nor the Evangelicals will show such courtesy, it won't be long before you will be forced to acknowledge each other's presence. But that'll just make for a good show so the rest of us can while away Eternity.

Robt I W: on funerary monuments, official lists of titles, etc, cardinals are usually given as "SRE", i.e. Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, aren't they? It's the word "Catholic" that's missing from their description of themselves, not Roman.

Since I'm older than anyone on the list, I can avow that the Japanese translation was "Church of the Kicking Overseers" which was rejected in favor of Nippon Sei Ko Kai. (And, interestingly, since the Anglicans beat the Romans in organizing in Japan, = they had to use "The Roman Catholic Church" as their legal title there.)

And some wag has suggested that we make it TECNYC (which does sound very "modern") -- i.e., "The Episcopal Church based in New York City"!

The official title is: Sancta, Catholica, Apostolica Romana Ecclesia.
Cf. The Decrees od the Vatican Council, edited by Father McNabb, O.P., pp. 15 and 35 seq. (Burns & Oats, 1907). (Of course at that time there had been only one Vatican Council & its decrees made it unnecessary ever to have another).

But to return to what this (probably dead) thread is supposed to be about -- saying that the recognition of a new homophobic Anglican province in North America is likely to take years, is surely a way of saying that it is not going to happen but to encourage the homophobes to keep at it until something gives (a good principle in guerilla warfare -- see The Chapman Memo & Mao Tse Tung -- sorry -- I learned Wade-Giles from a Taiwanese).

"on funerary monuments, official lists of titles, etc, cardinals are usually given as "SRE", i.e. Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae."

Because, of course, they are considered attached to the Church of Rome, i.e. the diocese of Rome, and hence have the right to choose that diocese's bishop.

It is the name also given them by the Code of Canon Law--Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. It is the particular church whose bishop has a certain distinctive authority over the Catholic Church.

It's just one of those strange points that we have no problem talking about the Orthodox Church, even though we all consider ourselves orthdox, or referring to the Episcopal Church, even though many churches are ruled by bishops, but there is a great hesitation by some to use the Catholic Church's name for itself. Hence the ubiquitous "RC" (which, where I came from, was the name of a cola). It is usually simple courtesy to refer to people by the name they call themselves.

"It is usually simple courtesy to refer to people by the name they call themselves"

But when they damage or exclude others in their own title, that is not at all courteous, that's arrogance. We in the USA have a hard time with this, but calling ourselves "Americans" smacks the face of everybody from Buenos Aires to Toronto.

We're also Anglicans, does that mean we are all 'English'? Hardly, but we accept it widely.

rick allen: "It is usually simple courtesy to refer to people by the name they call themselves" Yes, I agree: it would be nice if that courtesy were extended by the RC Church towards Anglican priests and bishops.

"...it would be nice if that courtesy were extended by the RC Church towards Anglican priests and bishops."

I was under the impression we typically refer to Anglican clergy as priests and bishops. I don't know that Rowan Williams has ever been referred to as anything other than the "Archbishop of Canterbury" by Catholic clergy or people. That, in fact, was my point, that any formal ecclesiastical judgment about schism or the validity of orders is generally trumped in ordinary polite address.

Rick Allen clearly does not follow the more unsavoury Roman Catholic blogs that refer to ++Rowan as the "Archlayman of Canterbury."

"Rick Allen clearly does not follow the more unsavoury Roman Catholic blogs that refer to ++Rowan as the "Archlayman of Canterbury.""

Clearly.

"I was under the impression we typically refer to Anglican clergy as priests and bishops."

And I was under the impression that a Pope quite some time ago said Anglican clergy were NOT priests or bishops.

Ford, yes, Anglican orders are not considered valid by the Catholic Church, just as Anglicans deny the jurisdiction of "foreign prelates" in the realm of England. We do not agree, and have not agreed for some time. That does not mean that we do not do each other the courtesy of using each others' titles and offices. And that's all I'm talking about.

This, for example, is from a recent address by Pope Benedict to Archbishop Williams:

"Your visit to the Holy See coincides with the fortieth anniversary of the visit of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, to Pope Paul VI. It was a visit filled with great promise, as the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church took steps towards initiating a dialogue about the questions to be addressed in the search for full visible unity.

"There is much in our relations over the past forty years for which we must give thanks. The work of the theological dialogue commission has been a source of encouragement as matters of doctrine which have separated us in the past have been addressed. The friendship and good relations which exist in many places between Anglicans and Catholics have helped to create a new context in which our shared witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been nourished and advanced. The visits of Archbishops of Canterbury to the Holy See have served to strengthen those relations and have played an important role in addressing the obstacles which keep us apart. This tradition helped give rise to a constructive meeting of Anglican and Catholic bishops in Mississauga, Canada, in May 2000, when it was agreed to form a joint commission of bishops to discern appropriate ways to express in ecclesial life the progress which has already been made. For all of this, we give thanks to God."

I am sure there are plenty of "more-Catholic-than-the-pope" bloggers who object to such courtesies. So far as I can tell there is nothing awful or distasteful that doesn't have its web advocates or practicioners. But I speak of the mainstream.

"But I speak of the mainstream."

And, you're right, there is a great deal of courtesy in the mainstream. I shouldn't have butted my nose in.

"Ford, yes, Anglican orders are not considered valid by the Catholic Church" - Rick Allen -

Here again, Rick, you betray your membership of the Roman branch of the Catholic Church. Both you and Robert need to be reminded that we of the Anglican Communion take our roots from the same 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' as do most Churches of the West and East who have retained the historic Creeds, Formulae and Orders of Ministry. To assume, as you obviosuly do, that the Roman Branch of the Church Catholic contains the totality of 'Catholicity' in the Church is to ignore the realities of the situation.

The fact that a one-time pope of Rome, should have issued a papal BULL against the validity of Anglican Orders does not one whit invalidate those ordwers - in the sight of either God or Man. This obduracy on the part of Rome is, to say the least, inconsistent - when it came to the ordination of women, Rome was ropable. Why? If Anglican Orders are supposed not to matter?

"To assume, as you obviosuly do, that the Roman Branch of the Church Catholic contains the totality of 'Catholicity' in the Church is to ignore the realities of the situation."

What I believe about the Church is set out fairly concisely in Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.

I suppose you could call it an "assumption," but "article of faith" would be a little more accurate. It is, of course, a belief not shared by Anglicans, or the Orthodox, or Protestants. It is one of the places we obviously differ. But it seems odd to me that you would interpret that difference as my "ignoring the realities of the situation." I neither ignore nor deny the work of the Spirit or the undoubted holiness of those outside the visible society of the Church. But as a Catholic I understand the Church as a single visible society, not a communion of autonomous national communions or as one branch out of communion with other branches.

I don't mean to argue it, just to point out that I thought most people took those diverging beliefs about the nature of the Church as a given.

"I neither ignore nor deny the work of the Spirit or the undoubted holiness of those outside the visible society of the Church."

This is similar to the Orthodox position. Some find it insulting, but I don't. Probably because I feel much the same about many of our more Evangelical brethren. A little old lady who went to our place years ago used to have me over for lunch on occasion after church. There was a TV show called Meeting Place that broadcast a service from a different church every week. One Sunday, it was the Pentecostals. This prim old lady, still spry at over 90, watched for a while in silence as we sipped our sherry and waited for the grapefruits to broil (I kid you not). Finally she looked at me and with a nod to the TV said "You know, I s'pose Our Lord doesn't mind that kind of stuff." Kind of like that.

Ford, I think your analogy with Anglican recognition of "Pentacostal Orders" is a good one. But another comes to mind in light of recent events.

The American Episcopal separatists have just declared themselves an Anglican province and elected the former Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburg their archbishop. My guess is that the Anglican powers-that-be will treat them as a separated church, and will not in all likelihood use the title "Archbishop" for the chosen primate, not out of any arrogance, but to plainly communicate the illegitimacy of the supposed elevation, at least in the eyes of the existing communion.