Rowan Williams says (with I can only imagine a smile in his heart) that in fact the ecclesial deficit lies, not with Anglicans but firmly at the heart of the RCC -
"existing forms of primacy are – on the one hand – despite all their historic ups and downs, fundamentally unavoidable embodiments of the agreed principle or – on the other – so allied to juridical privilege and the patterns of rule and control I have referred to earlier that they simply fail to do what they say they are there for."

OOH! Not fit for purpose!! Quite a poke.

It is the RCC that moved the goal posts after we ordained women ....... (the smile gets broader)

You RCs are just making much of little things and confuse fade the first order things with second order matters and that's because you have Magisterium into an idol ...... ( heavily diguised belly laugh makes beard quiver)

But while this might pass as a reasonably robust defence of Anglicanism and women priests - NOT A WORD in defence of LGBT's at the same time the Catholic bishops in America slag us off in the vilest way.

What does such silence mean?

Gosh, I like Rowan. There is such an integration of holiness with theology, a kind of integrity that is both prophetic and disarming. I haven't been keen on a covenant, and still have worries to be sure, but this sort of theological reflection does give a basis for a graciously wide understanding of the Church, which a covenant just might be able to grasp. 'A shame he doesn't participate more directly in the creation of such schemes. I can understand that he might not want to overpower them and wants to let them get on with it, but he's uncommonly lucid and capable....

Dr. William's speech on his commitment to the women priesthood is very important. Despite his protests, this does reaffirm one very fundamental distinction between the CoE and the Catholic Church. That distinction is not going to change given Pope John Paul II's decree on women ordinations several years ago.

I think this is positive for the CoE also. The existing compromise was untenable since women priests were destined to be second-rate preachers. At least soon they will have full equality which is consistent with the reasoning which introduced women priests in the first place.

Once issues surrounding partnered gay clergy are also definitively settled, then believers in the CoE can make a clear cut choice.

People have complained that the new Ordinariate solution will create a church within a church. In fact, this has been the situation in the CoE for several years now. A church cannot remain united over a moral divide. People can worship in many ways but be moral in only one.

The Ordinariate is the perfect solution to the moral divide. At least now ALL Anglicans no longer have to be suffocated by the compromise and can make the choice for themselves as to which "moral" is the correct one.

Joe, whether or not the current Archbishop of Canterbury has a "graciously wide" understanding of the church, those whom the proposed covenant is designed to assuage have an understanding that is neither gracious nor wide.

To judge the covenant on the basis of a single personality is dangerous and misguided.

Lucid? Don't make me laugh. That speech was heavily coded, highly qualified, and rather convoluted. Which seems this Archbishop's style.

Oh, good Lord!

Rowan's been forced - forced! - into doing something by the sheer weight of public outrage at his fumble-fisted handling of everything from female bishops to Rome to the murderous Ugandan legislation, and suddenly he's integrating holiness blah-blah-blah?!

No wonder everybody in the world runs right over Anglicans and considers them too naive to live!

Seriously, what is wrong with you people?!

"At least now ALL Anglicans no longer have to be suffocated by the compromise and can make the choice for themselves as to which "moral" is the correct one." - Posted by Jakian Thomist

As so many Roman Catholics are doing, with their feet, in the USA [A good many to TEC, more (admittedly), to "None of the Above/Church of Dawkins"]

Rowan Williams' speech is a glorious statement - majestically mature theology that shows up the pettiness of curial obsessions, without using a single ungracious word. At long last Anglicanism has given its reply to years of petty carping from the Vatican. The reply is just common sense at one level: "Cannot we agree to disagree fraternally about minor matters?" On another level it reflects the full tide of ecumenical dialogue over the last century and the mind of one steeped in New Testament ideals and praxis of koinonia.

Is anyone in the Vatican, even Cardinal Kasper, capable of responding to this with equal breadth and wholeness of vision?

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Willibrands Symposium address, does not pull any punches on how he sees the Roman Magisterium as a barrier to any real progress on ecumenical relationships - either with the C. of E. or elsewhere. Critics of Archbishop Rowan would do well to recognise his considerable skills as as consummate theologian within the High Church Anglican tradition. His Catholic and Orthodox leanings - gleaned from a life-time of study on the history of the Church - stands Rowan in good stead - especially when he confronts Rome on it's out-dated institutional organisation. We need to honour and respect this representation on behalf of all Anglicans.

His brave stand on women's ordination - when engaging with theologians of the RCC - is highly commendable, bespeaking his own understanding that women need to be recognised as authentically called by God and the Church to exercise priestly ministry. This is something which Rome itself will balk at, but will need to consider very seriously when the ranks of their clergy are diminished to a point of inability to provide the ministry needed for mission.

The fact that the LBGT question has, for the moment, seemingly been put on the 'back burner', ought to be seen for what it undoubtedly is: the need for the ABC to address just one important issue at a time - especially considering Rome's vulnerability in the matter of pedophile priests and their cost to the Roman Catholic Church - in terms of both money and credibility. One thing at a time! We don't want to make the Pope dizzy.

I think Rowan is to be congratulated on his epic stance on the issue of the relative importance of First Order and Second Order doctrinal matters. That is enough to keep the Vatican thinkers busy for the time being. Don't expect everything all at once from Rowan. He is only one person in the Communion, and still has valuable gifts to share with all of us. I cannot imagine the last Abp. of Canterbury getting anywhere near to Rowan in either theological and pastoral capability.

I think the solution is quite clear, RW does believe women can and should be priests. He no longer believes that LGBT people are morally right when they enter into committed physical relationships.

I profoundly disagree with him on the latter point, but I think that is what he believes.

Absolutely. Astounding.

The human mind will glorify any amount of pap as great theology if it doesn't inconvenience them. So much better a poor leader than having to choose - or *horrors* BE - a good leader.

We're in the gutters of history, not because of our leadership, but because of *us*!

This is very interesting; the fact of the matter is that Rome responded to a great need - the Anglican church did not. The love that Rome has shown towards her brothers and sister so hated by the members of their own communion is beautiful and a true expression our Catholic faith. Let us all rejoice for God has called catholic Anglicans home to Rome.
The devil on the other hand has strengthened his hold over Anglicanism; as Catholic Christians we should weep that he has such hold over a church.

"This is very interesting; the fact of the matter is that Rome responded to a great need - the Anglican church did not. The love that Rome has shown towards her brothers and sister so hated by the members of their own communion is beautiful and a true expression our Catholic faith. Let us all rejoice for God has called catholic Anglicans home to Rome."

Wow. Put us right in our place there. Good shot, sir. Huzzah.

And, for centuries, and still, Anglicanism has shown love towards those hated and driven out by the Roman church.

So, pretty much even, there, with, perhaps, a slight tilt in Anglicanism's favor by dint of accepting actual outcasts without having to form a cyst around them to keep them from infecting "the Pure."

"The devil on the other hand has strengthened his hold over Anglicanism; as Catholic Christians we should weep that he has such hold over a church."

Before you go putting yourself forward for plaster sainthood, you might want to read something called a Gospel. It has this great guy, Jesus (you may have heard of Him), and He makes some mention about only God is really capable of that kind of judgment. He also mentions something about people who go calling the Holy Spirit's work the Devil's work. Just a casual suggestion. I know it's busy work praying for all the publicans.

"This is very interesting; the fact of the matter is that Rome responded to a great need - the Anglican church did not."

Really? Seems to me the CoE (there is no such thing as the "Anglican church") responded to an even greater need...the need of fully one half of its membership to feel that they can be complete members of the church, with all of its ministries--lay, priest, bishop--open to them.

Mark
"her brothers and sister so hated by the members of their own communion"

I'm sorry to remove the glow of martyrdom from you, but actually - we don't hate you, we simply disagree with you.

"Don't expect everything all at once from Rowan." No, Father Smith, no, we won't.

But your somewhat gushy encomium forced me to finally break down and read the dratted speech, which I had been trying to avoid. I'm glad I read it, the press accounts missed all the main stuff, understandably. It was a gutsy paper to deliver, inasmuch as it was a challenge to the RCC and did not kowtow or prevaricate. It presented a coherent argument from start to finish.

But the content struck me as cerebral and bloodless, high-level school theology, alien to the pew-level view of the issues. The carefully pared-down definition of the church would satisfy few believers in either church, but allowed the Archbishop to cavalierly dismiss "Second Order Issues" (like the church's magisterium, even papal primacy!). Agreement by professional theologians on the abstruse and engineered ecclesiology must override all other controversies. Following which the RCC will reform its governance on the model of the admired serenity and mutual love and cooperation of the dioceses of the Anglican Communion (no mention of Provinces).

Yeah, right!

I wish the Archbishop would not make so many of his statements in the form of questions. It gives a feeling that he isn't saying anything. He clearly has serious thoughts on the issues, but he pulls his punches. This whispery, hinty style may or may not suit European church diplomacy, but it sure won't play in Peoria.

BTW, what will play in Peoria is your coinage "epic stance."

Mark, we are happy to find the old Rowan still in sterling form. The point he makes is also very apt at this moment, and is lucidly and challengingly posed, recalling Rome to its commitment to the ecumenical process, which lies deeper than quarrels about gender and authority:

"Therefore the major question that remains is whether in the light of that depth of agreement the issues that still divide us have the same weight... Are they theological questions in the same sense as the bigger issues on which there is already clear agreement? And if they are, how exactly is it that they make a difference to our basic understanding of salvation and communion? But if they are not, why do they still stand in the way of fuller visible unity? Can there, for example, be a model of unity as a communion of churches which have different attitudes to how the papal primacy is expressed?"

This is the unity Christ prayed for in John 17 -- he is putting this up against the Roman interpretation of "that they be one" as meaning one single Institution. The Anglican interpretation of community and unity is making more sense than the Roman one just now, and RW seizes the moment to state the Anglican vision afresh.

In light of the "pap" "convoluted" and "blah-blah" dismissal of this speech, I reread it carefully. Its theme of theological convergence is a very powerful one, applicable in several ways. What gives it power is that it is rooted in the thought of Vatican II, Ut Unum Sint and agreed Ecumenical statements. That is, he is asking the Vatican if it takes seriously any longer the unfinished ecclesiological revolution of the Council. He boldly asks that the practical consequences of theological convergence be drawn. It does not require juridical unity -- indeed such a unity would be a triumph for the ultramontanism that has devalued the Church's communal life -- but rather full recognition of the unity that already exists. Rome cannot go on forever pretending that Anglicanism is not the full shilling (forgetting its own teaching that "the Church of Christ is present and operative" in all Christian churches). Rowan Williams is calmly awakening his Roman hearers to the fact that making a song and dance about minor disagreements and failing to see the massive Christian unity of our shared Gospel, community and sacramentality, is destructive and irresponsible. His own struggles for Anglican unity give extra weight to his remarks.

"The devil on the other hand has strengthened his hold over Anglicanism; as Catholic Christians we should weep that he has such hold over a church."-Mark Wharton

The gall of this man, the hubris, the deceit, seems unparalleled with this statement.

OK, now I guess I should call the Anglican dissenters to women's ordination and consecration as "led by Satan," and simply going back to Satanic Central Administration in Rome.

Hogwash!

Neither the dissenters, nor the Romans, nor the Anglicans (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, US, Canada, wherever) are under the hold of "the devil," Mr. Wharton.

Each has different beliefs, in some cases about minor issues, in other cases about major issues, but they are faithfully-held beliefs.

Over time, most of these will disappear, but those that hold firm will have been formed or led not by "the devil" but by honest beliefs that cannot be reconciled in this generation.

Spirit
thank you. I liked the speech too.
I think there's a danger that those of us who condemn Rowan over his stance on lgbt issues and on Uganda unthinkingly criticise and dismiss everything he says.

Let's assume Rowan Williams wants a Civil Partnership with Joseph Ratzinger.

RW: These differences between us aren't that major, we should be able to get together.
JR: They are fundamental. We'd never get along.
RW: (Long speech takes place that people struggle to follow, but JR can)
JR: It's all very well, but nothing has changed, and what's more I'm trying to steal your children and put them in my nursery with your wallpaper and approved toys.
RW: Oh that changes nothing fundamental.

It takes two to ecuminate.

Or go shopping...

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/11/archbishop-of-anglicanism-at-woolworths.html

Agree with Anthony.

This is indeed whispery, hinty, querulous stuff.

It might be well suited to a university debate (note the location). But it is unlikely to make much of an impression in the pews.

"Epic?" "Brave?" "Powerful?" Only in a seminary.

Rowan upholds papal primacy -- the issue is how it is interpreted. Anglicans tend to like the primacy of honor as symbol of unity and touchstone of orthodoxy that prevailed in the 4th century. The pew-view may be that papal primacy as defined in an increasingly power-centered sense from Gregory VII to Pius IX is the essence of the RCC. But given that the current conception of primacy was defined only in 1870 at a divided and unfree Council and that it has been supplemented by a strong stress on episcopal collegiality in the 2nd Vatican Council, I think quarrels about it should not overshadow the fundamental experience of church that Anglicans and Catholics fully share. And even pew-view Catholics can be educated to understand what Rowan is saying -- it is not very difficult theology.

> The fact that the LBGT question has, for the moment, seemingly been put on the 'back burner', ought to be seen for what it undoubtedly is: the need for the ABC to address just one important issue at a time - especially considering Rome's vulnerability in the matter of pedophile priests and their cost to the Roman Catholic Church - in terms of both money and credibility.

Do you think so? I had assumed it was just loathsome cowardice and betrayal.

++Rowan states:

"Since then, this latter issue [the ordination of women] has been defined by the highest authority in the Roman Catholic Church as one in which the Church does not have the liberty or the competence to license change as regards the historic prohibition against women in holy orders."

The same proof text from Matthew that Rome uses to establish it's primacy, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..." (the one where Peter gets the famous "keys to the Kingdom") also gives Rome all the room it needs to do whatever it wants: "What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."

Rome would be far more honest and sympathetic, in my view, if they stated the truth: "We don't want to ordain women." Rather than blaming their discrimination on Jesus.

As far as the "unity" of the RC Church goes what we see on the ground in the US is a population exchange. If you look at the statistics for "Nones," individuals who give no religious preference and, at 15% the fastest growing "religious group" in the US, 35% are ex-Catholics--far in excess of the 22-24% of the US population who are RC. That figure for RCs in the population has remained constant over the years because the ranks are filled by Hispanic mass immigration.

I suspect that this in microcosm is what's happening in churches generally. Affluent, socially liberal individuals are dropping out and, in some churches in some places being replaced by poor, socially conservative immigrants and people in the Global South--and the socially conservative American working class.

And I also suspect that Rat regards this as all according to plan because he sees modernity as a failed experiment. The aging secular population of Old Europe will die out because gays and women who reject traditional sex roles will not breed and be replaced by young, fertile immigrants and the socially conservative populations of the Global South who will repopulate the Church.

"The fact that the LBGT question has, for the moment, seemingly been put on the 'back burner', ought to be seen for what it undoubtedly is: the need for the ABC to address just one important issue at a time - especially considering Rome's vulnerability in the matter of pedophile priests ..."

Huh? I don't see the connection.

Rowan's address was weak tea, indeed. To reverse his failure thus far as the Archbishop of Canterbury, he'd need something akin to a road to Damascus experience.

Is it possible for Rowan to make the leap from this statement...

"For many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women," he said.

...to this statement:

For many Anglicans, not ordaining GLTB persons has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptized straight persons and baptized LGTB persons?

I guess not.

As US Episcopal Bishop Barbara Harris said:

"How can you initiate someone and then treat them like they’re half-assed baptized?"

If "Global South" means Africa, China and a few Pacific Islands then I would agree. But Catholic churches in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Colombia, Chile and elsewhere are nearly as empty as they are in Spain, France, Italy and Québec, and the Latin American countries are following the same path. Mass attendance is trending down and they are adopting laws that the Catholic Church opposes. Argentina just had their first legal same sex marriage. Civil unions exist in Uruguay, Colombia and Ecuador. Domestic Partnership exist in Brazil.

What the Global South is sociologically seems to be shrinking year by year. And if the Global South becomes nearly as affluent as the Global North, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't secularize like the North did.

Chilling dose of reality, H. E. Baber...I'm afraid that you are probably quite right in your assessment.

"Rat" LOL.

I appreciate everyone's comments, because while I'm well-read and quite familiar with the Queen's English, college dissertations make me fall asleep, and so far as I can tell, that's the only medium in which ABP Williams speaks. So I'll cheat and continue to get the Cliff's Notes version via this forum.
It's nice to see Abp Williams uphold the value of women's ordained ministry and the validity of their calling to Pope Benedict XVI. How about doing same for those who would block women in the CofE?
***
"Rome would be far more honest and sympathetic, in my view, if they stated the truth: 'We don't want to ordain women.'" Deacon Charlie Perrin, I believe that, stripped of the abstruse theology, that is exactly what Pope John Paul II stated. There were many areas where I didn't like Pope J2P2's teachings, but, I have to admire his honesty.

As far as Rowan goes, I think he deserves a little praise. So, one and a half cheers for the good Archbishop: “Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip...”

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA

Mimi,
that's all very true, but the lgbt issue is not what occupies RCC and Anglican relations at the moment. The current situation there is that Rome has responded to the CoE's decision to ordain female bishops by offering Anglicans a seperate Ordinariate, and Rowan's speech was in that context.

That his moral credibility is weak because of his appalling stance on lgbt issues and his silence over Uganda does not diminish this speech in Rome.

I thought it was a spunky performance by RW, especially considering the context and recent events (Kasper's comments on this issue came as near to an apology as one will ever get from official RC quarters). But, pace our dear friend 'Spirit', I wish all Anglicans (and RCs, Orthodox and Baptists and Methodists and all Christians) would abandon even lip-service to 'Papal primacy'. That primacy is a historical accident and even if it were not it is so easily open to abuse (no need to enumerate instances) that it should be buried.

In citing the C of E and Anglicanism as a paradigm of how to manage difference and diversity, RW was being both brave and provocative, but he was - I think - championing an ideal over present lamentable realities. For what it's worth, it's an ideal I share, which is why I continue to support admittedly cantankerous and difficult characters such as Ed Tomlinson.

Martin (to whom I again apologise) and Rosemary and others are of course absolutely right that this spunkiness contrasts with silence on gay and related issues, but I can't believe - pace Rosemary - that RW has really decided that sexual activity between gay people is wrong: the position is just too stupid. Of course, I wish that the whole 'sex debate' hadn't committed itself to 'only between faithful partners': a certain amount (how far of course debatable) of sexual experimentation for all sexes is highly desirable. Practically everyone knows this - and lives it - but embarrassment and hypocrisy have stifled unobjectionable realities.

Reservations, then, but on balance one takes heart: our Archbishop actually believes in the virtues of Anglicanism!

"The aging secular population of Old Europe will die out because gays and women who reject traditional sex roles will not breed and be replaced by young, fertile immigrants and the socially conservative populations of the Global South who will repopulate the Church" -- H.E. Baber.

This worry has been around since the late 19th century, though then it was more commonly phrased in racist terms, as "Rising Tides of Color" that would overwhelm the Anglo-Saxon culture and Protestant religion of the US.

In fact, what happens -- worldwide -- is that middle-class people of any color or ethnicity tend to have fewer children than the poor. Assuming that new immigrants to the US will move up the same economic ladder as the immigrants of the past have done, they will also begin to have fewer children and take on the more tolerant social and religious views of the educated middle classes.

choirboyfromhell, you know Cleveland. It was the same there in the late 19th century. The overwhelming majority of the city's residents at that time were recent immigrants, most of them Catholics from the poorer parts of Europe: Irish, Italian, Czech, Slovak, Polish. But the poor immigrants didn't set the religious or cultural tone of the city. Amasa Stone and Samuel Mather did. There is no reason to think that numbers alone are particularly significant today, either.

Surely 'the devil' is, in fact, in the detail ?

"The devil on the other hand has strengthened his hold over Anglicanism; as Catholic Christians we should weep that he has such hold over a church."
- Mark Wharton, on Friday -

Oh, to have such wonderful powers of discernment of the Devil's work as you have, Mark Wharton. Most of us who are 'catholics' within the Church, however, no not have such a close relationship with 'His Eminence', as to make the sort of statement you here profess.

"Judge not, that you be not judged" is, I think, quite an important corollary to the sort of rash judgment of the Anglican Communion as you have presumed to make in this statement. To presume that you (as a 'catholic') have an insider view of the motivation of a theologian like Rowan Williams is little short of hubris and deserving of being kicked out of court by true 'catholics' whose desire for the Universal Church is one of inclusivity, and not discrimination based on pure ignorance of the realities.

The ABC's scholarly and thoughtful expose of Rome's presumed dominance of 'catholic tradition'
is something which most 'Thinkling Anglicans' can at least be grateful for - even if he seems to be slow off the mark in other areas.

Sorry, Mark, I try not to be entirely dismissive of anyone's remarks on this site, but really, yours on this thread really do take the biscuit.

cantankerous and difficult eh?!

I love you too John ; ) but fret not that is only my persona on uber liberal sites like this one!!

Fr Ron Smith does make me smile when he wants to elevate matters 'epic' to such a portentous level! I rather regret there isn't a musical term - rather like Allegro or Adagio - PORTENTOSO - especially dedicato to Fr Ronaldo

M. Baber, I recall then Archbishop Ratzinger in the 1960's saying (and I cannot provide a citation) that he envisioned the possibility that the church might be in future much smaller, a remnant in the biblical sense. My impression was that he viewed this possibility with acceptance, as part of God's plan.

"That his moral credibility is weak because of his appalling stance on lgbt issues and his silence over Uganda does not diminish this speech in Rome."

Erika, I'm afraid it does to me.

Spirit of Vatican II (a moniker that these days seems eerily akin to Ghost of Christmas Past) - I appreciate your reading of Archbishop Williams's paper. It is a helpful analysis, and clarifies the Archbishop's argument. You make it clear what he is proposing. I expect that the proposals will cut no mustard with the Vatican. Anthony

Some of my objections to his speech were prompted by the Archbishop's rhetorical style, which seems largely derived from Cicero's First Catalinarian oration. Cicero's hammering questions are effective, because they are simple, dramatic, and deeply ironic. In the Archbishop's use, questions are frequently a passive-agressive means to manipulate the audience's concurrence, and they sound whiny. The paragraph Spirit of Vatican II quoted is a good example. All its sentences are questions, including the first pseudo-proposition.

"Therefore the major question that remains is whether in the light of that depth of agreement the issues that still divide us have the same weight. Are they theological questions in the same sense as the bigger issues on which there is already clear agreement? And if they are, how exactly is it that they make a difference to our basic understanding of salvation and communion? But if they are not, why do they still stand in the way of fuller visible unity? Can there, for example, be a model of unity as a communion of churches which have different attitudes to how the papal primacy is expressed?"

There is some irony there, but it is muzzled. The word "exactly" in this context signals irony. I call this style passive-agressive, however, because the Archbishop clearly knows where he stands but does not want to risk a direct statement. He demands that his audience internally supply the statements he won't risk making. As a persuasive technique it is sort of a shell game. At the end the speaker has complete deniability. But it can make the speaker appear indecisive, a much-debated term when applied to the Archbishop. Moreover, a series of complex questions such as this risks question-begging. The passage rests on cogent thoughts, that, expressed assertively, could have a strong effect.

"Rowan upholds papal primacy -- the issue is how it is interpreted. Anglicans tend to like the primacy of honor as symbol of unity and touchstone of orthodoxy"

I appreciate this, SV2, as it takes me back to *my* "ecumenical prime" in the 80s and (early-mid) 90s. Certainly, the ecumenism of "Ut Unum Sint" (both coming out of ARCIC I, and going into ARCIC II) had that promise...

...but where ARCIC II started to go astray (in terms of its lack of reception by Anglicans in the main), was in its emphasis on *Papal* primacy.

I think many Anglicans are (were?) willing to consider a "primacy" of the *Bishop of Rome* as a "Primus Inter Pares". That is, as the ABC is (was?) the recognized *spokesperson* (both in the sense of "speaking for", AND in the sense of "hub of the wheel-spokes") for Christians of the Anglican tradition, so could the Bishop of Rome be for Christianity as a whole...

...but where the Bishop of Rome morphs into "The Pope" is EXACTLY where the Ecumenical Train goes off the tracks (not only for Anglicans and other Western Christians, but Eastern Christians as well).

Not only does the concept of "the Roman Pontiff"---"THE Holy Father"---stick so many egalitarian Anglicans in the craw, it also reifies a *monarchical* view of "primacy" (beyond "spoke", to "Christ's Vicar on Earth") in a way that is absolutely unacceptable to everyone who is NOT a Latin Christian (and many who are! ;-)).

As the latter, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the Bishop of Rome to be a "symbol of unity"---and as far as a "touchstone of orthodoxy" goes, only in the sense of a (again, UNACCEPTABLE) *hammer*.

Whatever one may believe about Peter, "Peter" or Bishop-of-Rome-as-Peter: once the possible attributes of "Simon-come-Rocky" get turned into "THE POPE", Christian *communion* (koinonia) goes out the window, and only (The World's/All-Roads-Lead-to-Imperial-Rome) POWER-OVER remains.

Still fretting over the Archbishop's very important Roman speech, I tried decoding a small part into direct statements. The Archbishop quite likely would not be happy with my version, but it is his thoughts and mostly his words. IMNSHO it is a lot easier to grasp than the original, and would have sounded more self-confident and authoritative, while he was standing up in his clothes before all those cardinals. I used the passage quoted in my previous post and by Spirit of Vatican II above, 20 November 2009 at 1:29pm GMT:

>That deep agreement renders our remaining divisions less weighty. We agree on the bigger issues; the remaining questions are not theological in the same sense. They make no difference to our shared understanding of salvation and communion. Why do they still stand in the way of fuller visible unity? As a model of unity, a communion of churches employing different expressions of papal primacy, for example, could serve us well.<

I'm sure that's what the Archbishop meant, and it still contains enough fudge for any sweet tooth. I have to admit sneaking in what he might consider a substantive change. I felt compelled to say "deep agreement" instead of his oft-repeated "depth of agreement" which makes the degree of depth the criterion rather than the agreement itself. But maybe he intended that. It would be very Anglican. It would drive the Vatican Thomists nuts. There are more differences between us and them than married clergy.

BTW, this was an interesting exercise. It helped me to zero in on the Archbishop's thoughts, which aren't too shabby.

It's utter pap. Nothing new. Nothing useful.

An utter failure as an archbishop in any church.

Coward. Self-promoter. Enabler.

If this is what a worldwide AC can offer, so much the better to be out of it. Realpolitik. The Faith of the Possible.

This "Christianity" is a shameful scam.

More realistically:

ABC: "Therefore the major question that remains is whether in the light of that depth of agreement the issues that still divide us have the same weight. Are they theological questions in the same sense as the bigger issues on which there is already clear agreement?"

Curia: (sotto voce) Yes.

ABC: And if they are, how exactly is it that they make a difference to our basic understanding of salvation and communion?

Curia: They don't make any, Rowan, but they're showstoppers.

ABC: "But if they are not, why do they still stand in the way of fuller visible unity?" [Note: BEGGING THE QUESTION]

Curia: But they are, Rowan, they are.

ABC: "Can there, for example, be a model of unity as a communion of churches which have different attitudes to how the papal primacy is expressed?"

Curia: Don't be ridiculous.

Deacon Perrin - The RCC does not blame Jesus for the prohibition against conferring Holy Orders on women. They blame the Holy Ghost. The RCC has publicly stated that the prohibition is not scriptural but comes from Tradition. BTW Pope John Paul II said more or less what you recommend almost 30 years ago with all kinds of gongs and trumpets. I am told that it was only the intervention of Cardinal Ratzinger that persuaded him not to make it an ex cathedra infallible pronouncement.

"How can you initiate someone and then treat them like they’re half-assed baptized?"

Hey Grandmere! It ain't hard when you are badass yourself!

God love Bishop Barbara Harris whatever she may be up to these days. She brought joy to our hearts in my Boston days, for sure. Anthony

Well, anthony, I imagine you don't like the rhetorical technique in sermons, either (as if this weren't - when clergy talk, there isn't really that much difference except in structure between "lecture" and "sermon"). The point is not the speaker's deniability, but to call for a response from the listener. Now, I agree with your note about what the responses are likely to be; but he at least called rhetorically for a response, for which the listener is accountable, instead of just leaving his own opinions on the table as so much interesting decoration.

As to his subject: surely we all know that that opponents are making the same argument whether they oppose ordination of women or ordination of glbt siblings: "We can't ordain any of these persons because there's something *wrong* with them." Once we appreciate that there's nothing inherently wrong about any class of human beings, it doesn't matter which class is the subject of the moment. I took longer for me to appreciate full inclusion of glbt persons than to appreciate full inclusion of women (overlooking for the moment the significant overlap); but it came when I realized it was the same theology: that the matter of the sacrament is the human person, not some "approved" subdivision of human persons.

Presumably all those who approve of RW's speech (= most people here) ought logically also to approve of separate 'internal' provision for opponents of WO, as RW himself does (as, indeed, he implies here)?

Thanks Anthony for help with decoding RW. I probably can never get too much decode assistance when it comes to RW. What I cannot quite figure however is what attracts RW so to the dreaming chimera of reuniting with the Vatican, apparently in his own lifetime? If Vatican II reforms, not just law but spirit, were still alive and well inside Rome, that would be understandable and alluring. It's clear that the core of B16's leadership these days is to roll back VII, not just legally but also in spirit. Extoll Opus Dei as the model of modern believerhood; discipline the WO and gay and other dissenters in global Roman Catholic communities?

No surprise that ex-Roman Cs are a fast growing subset of the None Of The Above, officially designated (per Vatican categories and strictures) None-Believers.

I must say that RW spoke for WO more strongly than I would have predicted; and that right in the Lion's Den of antiWO church royalty. Yet as an enactment of 'mutual submission' I think it falls flat, and falls short. Submissive in tone and elocution, but rather confrontational in implied Anglican inquiry - and none of his audience were slow to get it, I expect.

Why not better to just admit that we are still divided and will be divided, by our different beliefs about what God can and cannot do in women's modern era daily lives?

We are simply not yet, really, at a point where we even agree on first order vs second order matters. Example? See how easily some posts on this thread gloss the distinction, so that antiWO Anglicans can then use the second order accommodation to punish women and anybody who dares to receive their ministries? Always leaves me wondering what the mutual submission of the antiWO crowd actually is, since their attitudes let alone their behaviors towards women are so patently settled in toxic belief directions?

I just don't hear that we Anglicans are really there yet; let alone Rome, too. PS, mutual submission on the hot button queer issues for RW always seems to mean that queer folks will submit by returning to a traditional equation of silence+invisibility+powerlessness in church life so that the real believers who are always straight or straight wannabes can get on with God with gusto?

Marshall Scott - you are right on the mark, I do not like sermons and especially sermons that try to con me into making a response predetermined by the preacher. I invariably make the opposite response. I resent such attempts at manipulation, whether from preachers or politicians. Unless delivered with the virtuosity of Cicero or Burke, their place is in the rhetoric of hucksterism.

And if I had regarded the Archbishop's opinions as "so mcuch useless decoration," I wouldn't have bothered to read his speech.

As to regarding the purpose of his trip to Rome as an opportunity to preach a rousing sermon to the soi disant Sacred College, bother! He has better things to do. If the speech was meant as a wider communication by way of the press, however, it was like most of his others, too convoluted to sustain the public's attention.

" None of his audience were slow to get it, I expect." drdanfee

Surely a few of them knew what he was going to say before he did.

A futile attempt to convince his actual audience by a speech was not needed. The speech was for the rest of us, I suspect.

"Why not better to just admit that we are still divided and will be divided, by our different beliefs about what God can and cannot do in women's modern era daily lives?" Yes, exactly. Precisely.

"Presumably all those who approve of RW's speech (= most people here) ought logically also to approve of separate 'internal' provision for opponents of WO, as RW himself does (as, indeed, he implies here)?"

I have no opinion on this, but I think the proposed Covenant would not be a bad idea IF it respected differences on a basis of full equality and mutual respect, not making an invidious distinction between First Tier and Second Tier believers.

"I have no opinion on this, but I think the proposed Covenant would not be a bad idea IF it respected differences on a basis of full equality and mutual respect, not making an invidious distinction between First Tier and Second Tier believers." - Spirit of Vatican II -

I have to admire your determination, Spirit, to follow in the foosteps of Blessed Papa Giovanni XXIII. I, too, would welcome a 'Covenant' that would honour the 'second order' differences between Anglicans - without recrimination on either side. But, seemingly, this is not possible. One of the problems would seem to be the need to replicate something like the Roman *Magisterium*, which many of us find, not just unnecessary, but somehow faintly offensive.

Whatever the perceived 'faults' of the Roman C. governance, it seemingly has the power to quell the culture of destructive wrangling that we Anglicans are heir to. Perhaps it has to be so, in order to clear the way for prophetic action.

H.E. Baber's commentary on traditional sex roles and breeding show a great ignorance indeed of women and their behaviour, as well as of traditional sex roles. I will confine myself to observing that "traditional" might include prostitution, being murdered or mutilated by husbands, brothers, or mothers-in-law for failure to fulfill an infinite number of expectations, or being sold into slavery: all good old traditions for women. Secondly, women who are in some sense "non-traditional" still find ways to "breed" and raise loved, wanted, safe children - unlike the many children who are abused in heterosexual homes, or beaten and sexually exploited by "traditional" monastics in orphanages. There are millions of non-traditional heterosexual Christian women who "breed" and raise successful families. Have a care to specify what you mean when you talk about "traditional", and try not to be coarse in matters treated more sensitively and honourably by people of faith.