Wednesday, 21 October 2009
some group responses to Vatican
Updated again Thursday morning
The Anglican Church in North America has posted this press release from Archbishop Robert Duncan.
CANA has this response from Bishop Martyn Minns Vatican Move Recognizes Reality of Anglican Divide.
Bishop Jack Iker in Fort Worth has Response to Vatican announcement of “personal ordinariates” for Anglicans available here.
Reform in the UK has Reform Initial Response To ‘Apostolic Constitution’ Announcement.
Affirming Catholicism has issued this:
Affirming Catholicism shares the desire of all Christians, and especially Catholic Christians, for the full and visible unity of the Church of Jesus Christ. We also value our Anglican tradition as one which has its own distinctive contribution to make to the life of the whole Church, a gift of the Spirit which is an important part of the richness of God’s work in the world.
We recognise that Pope Benedict’s announcement may be of great comfort to some who combine deep attachment to Anglican patterns of worship with acceptance of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church as regards doctrine and church order. We affirm, though, that there is an authentically Catholic tradition within Anglicanism which seeks unity through a process of mutual learning. In such a process, each church will have something to give and to receive at every level of its life.
It is for that unity that we continue to pray.
The Bishops of Ebbsfleet and Richborough have this statement.
The Society of the Holy Cross has issued a statement, see here, or in the comments below.
The Traditional Anglican Communion, which is probably the main beneficiary of this development, has issued this statement.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 12:44pm BST
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
If Jack Iker joins any organization where he can't continue to parade around as a bishop, I'll eat my hat.
Thanks but NO THANKS (of course the more separating and demolishing anyone can do to CoE while strengthening Gafconning Anglicanism is most welcome...all praise to Akinola, Jensen, Duncan and Orombi and the rest of you ALL be diminished sinners at The Body of Christ or be saved)!
Your hat is safe with Jack.
Lapin, I was thinking the same thing--there is no way on earth that Iker would ever be a mere priest again.
So much for ringing endorsements of the Vatican's move! What I read between the lines are a fear that parts of their membership will make the move and weaken their own groups and also a discomfort with giving up elements of their Protestant identity. They sound even more caught off guard than AB Williams.
Also, not sure how Bp Martyn Minns reads an endorsement of the formation of CANA into the Vatican's statement.
And of course the fact that none of the ACNA bishops would be able to go with their flocks as bishops!
The news stopped the presses worldwide yesterday.
I remain underwhelmed.
I just LOVE Counterlight's scorn. It is surely big news - though only time will tell. I guess the birth of Christ was underwhelming for most people? Time will tell...
These bishops are clearly rather wrong-footed. They try to find ammunition for their cause. One of them cannot help saying that Anglicans disagree with Rome about the Blessed Virgin -- ignoring the work of ARCIC on this.
"Also, not sure how Bp Martyn Minns reads an endorsement of the formation of CANA into the Vatican's statement." I was flat-out amazed! Truly special even for Minns. Did he discuss his thoughts with his ACNA prelate before sharing them with the world, and did he discuss them with Rome before he decided what Rome meant? And most important, did he discuss them with +Duncan? The commments registered from many of the leadership of ACNA if nothing else, prove that ACNA is not as unified an organization as it might have portrayed itself to b. +Duncan may have quite a difficult road to hoe to keep his boys in line.
Ha Ha, say what you want, the once mighty TEC and Anglican Communion no longer get to decide who is a real Anglican in the United States anymore. The ball game has changed. Anglicans can be genuinely Anglican as a part of Rome, the Anglican Church in North American, the Continuing Church,etc.
No more using the flippant term group to degrade Anglcian/Episcopalians that are no longer in communin with TEC/CofE. Oh, how the mighty have now fallen. If only TEC hadn't been so arrogant, and willing to seek flexible ways of mainting communion, it's membership and finances would not be crashing all around. Pride goes before the fall. Oh happy days!
Keep your beloved TEC group, I'm heading to the real Church, the see of Peter, the Catholic Church where I get to be a true Anglican Catholic.
Rather calls AffCaff's bluff. Stealing our clothes and language was a clever move but surely everyone knows affirming liberalism would be a more honest title? At Westcott there were members joining who had never seen a chassy in Their life but merely wanted to affirm pro women and gay agendas.
That is a bold move but beware of the Catholic Church. Some say the papacy is the antichrist. They changed the ten commandments which is the Law of God, the Pope claims to be a god, they have killed innocent people for centuries like the Spanish Inquisition and supporting the Nazis, and the priests have molested a lot of children. That is not Christian, that is evil hiding behind religion. Why do they have so many followers?!! People really need to open their eyes.
A statement from the SSC (Society of the Holy Cross) has been issued:
Statement by the Master of the Society of the Holy Cross (England & Scotland) on the Vatican statement concerning welcoming Anglicans into the Catholic Church
The Society of the Holy Cross has always had as one of its fundamental purposes to "further the Catholic Faith" and also to strive earnestly for reunion with the Holy See. It therefore welcomes warmly the recent statement by the Vatican and looks forward to receiving the full text of the Apostolic Constitution when it is finally issued by the Holy Father.
Even in outline form, the statement is a major step towards offering hope to those Anglicans who have become increasingly disillusioned with the current trends in Anglicanism and the steady move away from the central teaching of the catholic church. The Society of the Holy Cross lost many of its members in the fall-out following the decision by the Church of England in 1992 to proceed with the ordination of women to the priesthood. In the years following, the Society made a remarkable recovery and now exists as the largest society for priests in the Anglican Communion. Many of its members have been active in the Synodical process towards ordaining women as bishops, so that at least a breathing-space could be created for those who in all conscience cannot accept this doctrinal innovation.
The Vatican statement will be receiving urgent attention from the leadership of SSC, which also anticipates eagerly the full text of the Apostolic Constitution. It is too early for people to be making decisions one way or another and we must all allow ourselves a period of prayerful reflection. We must also in the future accept graciously whatever decisions individuals make according to their own circumstances and personal pressures. In the meantime, we urge all our Brethren to continue working tirelessly for the Kingdom of God and faithfully ministering to the people under their care. May the prayers of Mary, Mother of the Church, Saint Vincent de Paul, Saint John Vianney and Blessed John Henry Newman be with us all in this time of decision and change.
Society of the Holy Cross
Province of England & Scotland
Bill Barker: God go with you when you go. I hope you find happiness and the presence of Christ.
I don't know, though, that I would call a Uniate Anglican Catholic body somehow more Anglican than Canterbury than I would call the Ukrainian Catholic Church more Orthodox than the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This will be a Roman body, if not a Latin body; with a Roman rite and structure, if not the Latin Rite and structure. That may or may not be a bad thing, but I can't think I would call it authentically an Anglican thing.
Cheap jibe, Ed. When I survey the liturgical photos of you and Fr T E Jones and those of Fr Simon Tibbs or Fr Mark (of Via Integra), I discern an ecclesiastical and theological statement which is essentially the same (and which, as it happens, I do not share). These crude polarities have to go.
The Bishop of Ebbsfleet: "This is not a time for sudden decisions or general public discussion."
No, clearly this is a time for more behind-the-scenes scheming. Anything but a public discussion!
Bill Barker: "Keep your beloved TEC group, I'm heading to the real Church, the see of Peter, the Catholic Church where I get to be a true Anglican Catholic."
Well, you could have done this years ago, since the Anglican Use pastoral provision has been in place in the US since 1980. If you *really* think that it's up to Rome to decide who is and who is not an Anglican (and why you would think this is really beyond me), then what's taken you so long?
Calls our (AffCath's) bluff? How, exactly? Surely it's the Anglo-Papalists' bluff that's been called? If they really want Anglicanism with the Pope, now they can have it. We've always been clear that we didn't think the Catholic tradition was defined by Roman Catholicism - as of course are many Anglican Catholics who oppose women's ordination. And if you had to be a Catholic from birth in order to qualify, that's Newman and Manning out for a start.
"Keep your beloved TEC group, I'm heading to the real Church, the see of Peter, the Catholic
Church where I get to be a true Anglican Catholic.
- Bill Barker, on Wednesday -
Bill, I wonder if you know the importance of what you are articulating here? When you say, in one breath, that you acknowledge the See of Peter as the the true 'Catholic Church', you are already cencelling out your endorsement of what it might be to accept what you see as getting to be a 'true Anglican Catholic'.
What you seem to have completely missed out on is the fact of Anglicanism's rejection of the universal 'Primacy of Peter' at the Reformation. To forget the claim of the Church of England (and, by inference, the Anglican Churches which are heirs to her polity) of being both catholic & reformed; is to be completely ignorant of what Anglicanism is really all about. If you are, or were, a member of TEC, of course, your polity really derives from the Episcopal Church of Scotland; which also claims it's catholicity from a more universal heritage than just that of Rome.
I suggest that if you want to criticse TEC on the grounds of its non-catholic heritage, you get more closes acquainted with the real facts of its catholic and apostolic provenance.
Anyway, Good Luck with your new faith journey.
I am not at all surprised to see the affirmation from the SSC. This is, to some extent, what they've always said they wanted. I will wait to see how many of its membership in England and the US (where a few still remain) will follow through on corporate reunion.
The sleazy, greasy triumphalism from two Tiber swimmers confirm that this Catholic move is far from a triumph, far from acceptable to most right-minded people.
It's simply a scam, to break the spirit of those seeking to do God's Will for them.
I agree MarkB and, as similarly w/ Amy's facile anti-Catholicism, makes me ever-so-thankful for the blessed Via Media. I don't want to be a Popoid *or* a Calvinist, thank you very much!
"Many of its members (SHC) have been active in the Synodical process towards ordaining women as bishops, so that at least a breathing-space could be created for those who in all conscience cannot accept this doctrinal innovation."
- Kit Dunley, SHC -
I thought SHC members would have been moving in the opposite direction. Have you got this right?
Cheap, Ed, and rather childish.
You know, JCF, that has been bothering me, too. Amy is more forthright about it, but there's been this underlying, "Ohoho! The Catholic Church is getting what's coming to it with *this* group!" There's an underlying snideness toward the RCC that I really, frankly, can't understand.
I'm glad the RCC is there for those people who need to find God in that way. I don't like this pope and think that he is not only mistaken, but profoundly and wilfully mistaken on many points and forcing the RCC to take its shape around his misapprehension, but that's the nature of the RCC! It takes the shape of whoever is in charge. In the same way we in more liberal churches find ourselves hampered and frustrated by a broad-mindedness that collapses into a sort of haze where a theology should be, the current backwards (to me) nature of the RCC is part of the makeup. In the same way, the next pope may be liberal or at least more moderate and ecumenically-minded. I can't complain about John XXIII so I can't complain about Benny da Bavarian.
Time flows and changes, so do all human institutions, and they all have both their good and their bad as part of the life-cycle.
"...the steady move away from the central teaching of the catholic church..."
I'd like to see Kit Dunkley expand on what he means by this. Male only ordination and anti-homosexual attitudes are part of the "central teaching" of the catholic church? Gee--and here I always thought the central teaching of the catholic church was entirely contained in the Nicene Creed.
I really can't take anyone seriously who calls a chasuble a 'chassy', and thinks that wearing one, is what makes a priest a catholic. Please.
"There's an underlying snideness toward the RCC that I really, frankly, can't understand."
Where is it you live, again?
Bill Barker, that must have felt GREAT!!!! I know it used to when I was doing it in the early 80s. Of course, in those days there was no Internet, no blogs, and liberals didn't conveniently present themselves to be yelled at, so I had to do it in the car where the only people it affected were the ones stopped next to a raving lunatic stopped at a stoplight yelling at no-one ! I can only imagine how liberating it must be to get to yell at people like this FOR REAL!!! I'd have paid a lot for the chance back in 1981.
But, you see, I go to a relatively stodgy conservative parish that has weathered two divisive debates in the past four decades, and seems poised to weather a third. After you're gone, we will have two Masses a Sunday just like always, our mission congregation will, please God, continue its rapid growth, we might even relocate our building. And we will do what we have always done: be an Anglocatholic witness in this city, not one based on politics, but on community, fellowship, and lots of good eating! Your departure for Rome will go utterly unnoticed. Sorry about that.
But why not try doing what I did: don't go anywhere for a while, sleep in of a Sunday. After 18 years of that, I came to realize that I needed God more than He needed me and suddenly the things that had made me so angry, and they were worse by that time, didn't seem so important any more, and I found I could be an Anglican again. You might find that difficult but profitable in the long run. But, if you go to Rome out of hatred for Canterbury rather than love for Rome, you're not going to be any happier. All is not sweetness and light on the other side of the Tiber just because they are more authoritarian than we are, attractive though that may be to you. Unless, of course, you have decided that the "detestable enormities" of the Bishop of Rome aren't so detestable after all. In that case, a turn of coat would be pretty much required, I should think. I do hope it isn't too painful when you realize that, contrary to what you say in your rant, having joined Rome, you ceased to be Anglican and are required to check whatever Anglican sensibilities you do have at the door.
"..anglo-catholics have found the openness of the Anglican tradition, allowing for a wide range of views and different approaches, to reflect the realities of life in the Body of Christ as it is lived out in history and the world. For many within the catholic tradition, recent changes are a natural extension of our understanding of the
evolution of tradition within the life of the Church. The catholic tradition has never been about simply safeguarding narrowly explicit interpretations of scripture but about engaging the contributions and experience of all the members of the Body of Christ in the life of the Church." - Robert Hendrickson S.C.P -
This seems to be a good and thoughtful response to the invitation of the Roman Primate to those of the Anglican Tradition who agree with the un-Anglican notion of the 'Primacy of Peter' to join him in that branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Those of us who have been raised in the Anglican Catholic Tradition have long had a respect for the Roman See - but not as the supreme, sole and undisputed Head of Christ's Church on Earth - as the Roman Primacy is considered by its own constituency, to be. One might even consider the Pope to be, notionally, Primus inter pares of the Bishops of the Catholic Tradition (of which other catholic and apostolic Churches are an essential part - but not the infallible arbiter of Christian Faith and Doctrine.
As a priest, myself, of the Anglican Catholic Tradition, I value my Roman Catholic priest friends as colleagues in ministry. The fact that their official stance on my priesthood is nuanced by the official stance of Rome, does not prevent their personal acceptance of my ministry. I am satisfied with that, but would welcome the Pope's recognition of the validity of my Orders. BUT, I'm not banking on it - in this life!
In a house, Ford. :)
If you are asking how I could not comprehend the snideness, read what I wrote again.
I think Josef Ratzinger is a clown. He's a completely self-absorbed little twit with about as much good intention as your average dark lord who'd bring back burning at the stake if he could get away with it (and probably could in Nigeria and Uganda, from the look of it).
But that's Ratzinger. He'll die and there'll be a new pope, and with it a new RCC. It's built in to their system, regardless of claims of changelessness. The people, too, continue, regardless of the purple men and the red men.
We get Leo the Great and John XXIII from the same structure who brought us Roderigo Borgia and Josef Ratzinger in the driver's seat. I may despise the men, but the church has its place and its good points. I would change the structure, but then, I wouldn't be Roman Catholic. It offers what those called to it *need* to feel close to God.
It's true of all structures - keep in mind that TEC's tolerance and open-mindedness allowed Jack Iker, Bob Duncan, and the Schofield man.
You know, if the Pentecostals decide to offer some kind of Anglican Rite, Bob Duncan could lose the other half of his church.