on Friday, 17 November 2006 at 1.24 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England
Paul Handley talked to Rowan Williams.
Less a Roman holiday, more an Italian job
Oh how I hope the Holy Spirit inflames this meeting. We both need each other badly. We to become whole and they to move away from their centrist model.
If they offer an olive branch I will grasp it.
At least that is my view as a priest from the US.
I think one of the important things with this article is to read it as a whole, and not cherry-pick this sentence or that sentence. To me at least, it is a wonderfully rich discussion of where the Archbishop sees Anglicanism to be in 2006.
Well, that is a splendid, quick, and short summary of Anglican values and Anglican attitude. It’s probably the clearest statement I have ever heard from ++Rowan on ANY subject. He is not generally given to such succinct or simple statements, but this is quite excellent.
In my ruminations, I realize that in a simple matter like liturgical language “understanded of the people”, it took Rome nearly 400 years to catch up with us. It is probably unlikely they will be much quicker about women, married priests, and gays, but eventually they’ll “get it”.
It is a lot better interview than the one to the Catholic Herald. This time it is more consistent with itself, and perhaps he was trying too hard to meet a pushed Roman Catholic agenda before. I particularly like his localism regarding the Anglican approach, and then connecting in with something recognisable, and he is clearer and more consistent regarding his view of the eucharist (though I still don’t see how it can be other than a mental act). I’m not sure how to interpret the laughter, whether or not the questions are becoming wearing. However, this Covenant idea won’t… Read more »
But we English Catholics hope very much not. I do not think that Ratzinger will put up with much Rowanesque nonsense.
The Archbishop states, “…we are where we are on the ordination of women because of a theological conviction, and we really are not just being fashionable feminists: we believe that it’s something about the baptismal gift of being in the priestly people of God that is at issue; and that something is lost if that priestly identity of the whole people of God doesn’t find its expression in, potentially, any one of the baptised, man or woman.” I think this is an important difference between Canterbury and Rome, but also between differing Anglicans. It seems to me that this articulation… Read more »
Katie’s comments are not at all helpful or illuminating. So many of our many Episcopalian converts were Roman Catholic. That makes this meeting much more meaningful in my mind. Of course the Roman approach to women, celibacy, gays, etc. is awful and (hopefully) bound to fall away with time. However, there is an incredible social witness in the Roman church – and many of our saints and holy places are “managed” by the Roman church. Therefore an ongoing sharing and witness between these two fraternal branches of the body of Christ remains so very important. God speed to ++ Cantuar… Read more »
When asked why he remains an Anglican, Dr. Williams mistakenly answers with his opinions on papal infallibility. When corrected and asked again why he is an Anglican he replies that: “this is the Church Catholic in this place”. It is indefensible to say that the “Anglican Church” [sic] is “the Church Catholic” in this Realm… No one reading this will defend the statement, yet supposedly it is the reason why Dr. Williams is an Anglican. What about the Orthodox? The Methodists? The Jehovah’s Witness? The Mormons? Who decides “this is the Church Catholic in this place”? To his credit he… Read more »
The meetings at the Vatican where Pope Benedict wagged his finger and tossed blessed water yet again at cardinals and prelates asking simple questions like is it possible to be married and still minister, was rather serendipitous, coming as it did on the eve of a visit to Rome by ++Rowan, who may bring framed pictures of his wife Jane to show the Pope.
Ley Druid, we might be wise to take Paul Davison’s advice and not cherry-pick this or that sentence. Or, in your case, not cherry-pick a fragment from a sentence. The full sentence from ++Rowan, which you quoted only in part, reads, “I’m an Anglican because this is — it’s what I learnt in Sunday school, really — this is the Church Catholic in this place, gathered around the word and the sacrament, exercising a canonically continuous, recognisable form of the threefold ministry, structurally slotting in with how Catholic Christianity works.” In other words, ++Rowan didn’t decide that this is the… Read more »
I sense that when he says, “This is the Church Catholic in this place”, he is deeply saying,
‘This is home.’
Thank you Matt for your reply.
I wasn’t trying to cherry pick. I was commenting generally on the way ++Rowan responded to the question of why he is an Anglican.
Would many (any?) other Anglicans answer the same way? Do you think that it is a helpful answer for non-Anglicans? I don’t think so.
Thanks for the clarification, Ley.
Would many other Anglicans answer the question the way ++Rowan did? The difficulty here is that not many Anglicans are going to be asked that question in the same context as ++Rowan has been asked; as the successor of Augustine, primate of the Church of England, and spiritual head of the Anglican Communion who is about to meet with the Pope in Rome.
The question wasn’t asked in a merely academic sense. If it had been, I imagine that ++Rowan would’ve given a more general, more “helpful” answer than he did.