on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 1.50 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Anglican Communion
Alan Wilson wrote Small Earthquake in Rome?
Bosco Peters wrote End of Anglican Communion?
Kendall Harmon wrote Comments on the Latest Move from Rome.
More to follow, probably.
Check out “Clayboy”: http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/rome-and-traditional-anglicans-what-rowan-should-have-said/
Please look at the two threads on this at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org. The general feeling among Thinking Roman Catholics is that this is another Ratzinger mess.
Why is Rowan able to smile? Because he knows Anglo-Catholics far better than the Vatican does. He knows that far from the claimed half million, only a trickle of clerical blowhards will cross the Tiber. Thus Benedict has unwittingly called their bluff.
It is interesting to see in the video at the link below a Roman Catholic take on this news, including what it calls Rowan Williams'”endorsement” of this Vatican Plan. This video is from a group called Rome Reports, “a private and independent international TV news agency based in Rome, Italy, specializing in covering the Pope and the Vatican.”
No surprise that Kendall Harmon sees only a negative meaning in this, using it as an excuse for Canterbury-bashing. Since most of the secessionist Anglicans seem to hate Rome as much as they hate gays there are really only very slim pickings in this development for them.
What is most curious about all this is that, since most English Anglo-Papalists already use Roman liturgical forms, just what exactly is going to distinguish their liturgy in the new ordinariate as being distinctively ‘Anglican’ – since presently they avoid being distinctively Anglican at all costs! It would appear that having married priests, their own ‘Ordinary’, and perhaps the occasional Choral Evensong is about it. At least one AC considering the move has addressed this. Fr Jones at St Peter’s, London Docks writes: “Because we are what we pray, in November last year I published a post on this blog… Read more »
If you want to follow more Anglo-Catholic responses to the Pope’s initiative,
Ancient Richborough should give you lenty of links
Curious comment on this by Austen Ivereigh in “America, the National Catholic Weekly” – “Rome has been closely involved, and remains so, with the “covenant” process initiated by Dr Williams in 2004, which aims at tightening the bonds within the 80m-strong worldwide Communion.”
Another excellent response I wish I had written and with which I completely concur:
I would really like some more facts and figures on this Traditional Anglican Communion. It apparently claims 500,000. But where are they? In this country I doubt if they number 200 or so, or am I wrong? Apparently they exist in Australia, Africa, India, even S America? Well there cant be more than 200,ooo Anglicans in all S America.Are they brushing up against the TAC?? I’m rather bemused.
“Benedict has unwittingly called their bluff.” Well, someone needed to. And seriously, if they have no issues with Papal authority and the other issues that drove us to kick out the Pope 500 years ago, they are pretty much duty bound to put themselves under his control, um, care. If the only issue is that Rome is moving in a different direction on their favourite issues, and all the old disagreements from the Reformation are still there, then they are not being particularly honest. The only way they get to be what they are is because Anglicanism does not have… Read more »
Here’s another blog response: http://www.progressiveinvolvement.com/progressive_involvement/2009/10/fishing-in-the-anglican-lake.html
Jared Cramer has an optimistic/conciliatory take on things: http://www.jaredcramer.com/?p=1111
In a very brief note on his blog, Fr Hunwicke writes, “I regard as significantly positive the willingness of Rome to allow married Anglican bishops to continue to exercise episkope in the guise of prebyteral (sic) Ordinaries.”
Does anyone else see anything of the kind in the Vatican announcement?
I cannot be alone here in being cheered and comforted by the reflections of ‘that old heretic’ (as RC friends affectionately describe him), Joseph O’Leary.
John Hepworth, primate of TAC, is a divorced, twice-married, former RC priest. Tell me Rome is going to welcome this with open arms.
“•married priests in Anglican Personal Ordinariates will have to marry prior to ordination to the diaconate They will not be able to marry after ordination. Should his wife die, or he gets divorced (sorry – his marriage is annulled) he will not be able to marry. Roman Catholic deacons can be married, but in order to do so, must be married prior to ordination.” – Fr. Bosco Peters Blog (above) – For those of you who have not yet seen the videos of both the Archbishops of Westminster and Canterbury, I can recommend you tap into Father Bosco’s blog. Bosco… Read more »
Another blog response, from Fr. Hart of the The Continuum:
He’s a priest of one of the Continuing Anglican Churches, I think the Anglican Catholic Church.
Somebody please tell me that this whole thing is not just advanced p.r. for Dan Brown’s next novel.
It’s been said before that this “crisis,” or “schism,” or “mass exodus,” or whatever is written over the Emerald City today is powered almost-exclusively by clergy. This is true. They are the only ones with an investment. More bishops than you can shake a crosier at, Deans, Archdeacons, a buttressed ecclesial hierarchy. It’s also why they want the buildings so much. What the “True Believers” of this fiasco – if there is such an animal – forget is that people will put up with a lot, even if they feel outnumbered and outraged, just to stay put! The greatest power… Read more »
With regard to ” calling their bluff” and going to Rome or not. This was never going to be the response of that anglo-catholic end of the CofE. it would rather be a withering and atrophying, and would take a generation. It would however, especially in the north exacerbate an already serious situation about clergy numbers in some dioceses and how we would provide ministry in some areas.
There are many people in the RC Church genuinely interested in ecumenism. The top hierarchy is not. The Pope has acted in a manner true to his colours and many in his own Church will be in mourning. ++ Rowan should have defended his women priests and gay clergy before this, Now he pays the penalty for ‘toadying ‘ up to Rome. If these people go then life in the Anglican Communion will be better for LGBT people and for women priests but I mourn for those in the RC Church who also hope for the ordination of women and… Read more »
Believe me, it’s not going to be great in the AC, either. I feel, deeply, for our more liberal and ecumenically-minded friends in the RC, but the big difficulty for us is that we’re in a life-or-death struggle with our own *primus-inter-pares,* as it has become apparent that, while he’s in the driver’s seat, the Anglican Communion, indeed, anglicanism, no longer has a future. I think there’s a fair degree of mourning going in our circles, too, as even Williams’ staunchest supporters realize what a disaster he is.
Exactly JM Mayland. I always argued that far from advancing the wider cause of OOW in the RC Church (which I am in favour of) the precipitate action of Anglicans, after majority votes rather than consensus, has put the cause back decades by putting the frighteners on the RCs seeing our turmoil. I still hope and pray for a consensus, but we do not have one yet – either amongst Anglicans or with the RCs. You’ll never get complete agreement, as there is a tiny minority of bigoted misogynists – but consensus in my book would look more like 90%… Read more »
How in the world do you know we didn’t, Neil? I constantly here “Truth isn’t by majority vote,” almost immediately followed by “You should’ve waited for consensus.” Do you expect us to take people who say this seriously? Is abuse of any kind – and I assure you it *is* – abuse – allright because maybe, eventually most people, if we just wait, will feel differently? Is God known for waiting for consensus, Neil? Are we told to rebuke sinning brothers, or wait for consensus, Neil? You see, I accept rebuke from conservatives – who are DEAD wrong, of course… Read more »
“I constantly *hear* . . . ” not “here”
I always do that when I rush.
Yes MarkBRunson – God does indeed wait for the right moment…an opportune moment. And if everybody agreed with you that the ordination of women were simply a matter of justice, it would have happened years ago, and the ‘abuse’ of not ordaining them halted immediately. But you must know that most people do not see this debate in this way. And so, yes, by precipitate action – and by failing to engage in the theological debate to win the argument around the whole of Christendom (and by presenting a fait accompli) some Anglican Churches are reaping the seeds of division… Read more »
“…And so, yes, by precipitate action – and by failing to engage in the theological debate to win the argument around the whole of Christendom (and by presenting a fait accompli) some Anglican Churches are reaping the seeds of division that they have sown….” Why is it that Roman Catholics are always arguing that other Christian denominations should wait until there is a consensus of “the whole of Christendom” before making decisions–even about such second order concerns as women’s ordination or third order such as same-sex marriage–while the Pope has historically made “fait accompli” determinations about far more substantive doctrine… Read more »
“Why is it that Roman Catholics are always arguing that other Christian denominations should wait until there is a consensus of “the whole of Christendom” before making decisions–even about such second order concerns as women’s ordination or third order such as same-sex marriage–while the Pope has historically made “fait accompli” determinations about far more substantive doctrine such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and her assumption into heaven?” – Posted by: Pat O’Neill on Saturday – Because, Pat, Roman Catholics are beset by some odd and contrary doctrinal notions – too many to mention here, but one or two could… Read more »
Good point Pat O’N – and such precipitate action on the part of Rome has proved equally divisive.
The Marian doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Assumption were widespread throughout the RCC for centuries if not milennia before they were proclaimed. They were consensus teachings. The real fait accompli was made by the First Vatican Council in declaring the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope to which there were substantial objections. Many if not most Vatican II decisions were not consensus decisions either, But what about Nicea and the decision against Arianism? Very far from a consensus. Anthony
What you’ve just presented, Neil, is entirely a fairy-tale, made up out of your sense of disappointment. THIS statement is an outright misrepresentation: “And if everybody agreed with you that the ordination of women were simply a matter of justice . . .” It’s not just a matter of justice (and, if it were, it’s doubtful it would have made agreement any more certain; the churches are just as corrupt and ill-willed as any other human institution). The theology was done, ignored by opponents, so we went ahead because that’s what God tells us to do. Again, God is well-known… Read more »
“And so, yes, by precipitate action – and by failing to engage in the theological debate to win the argument around the whole of Christendom (and by presenting a fait accompli) some Anglican Churches are reaping the seeds of division that they have sown.” We Anglicans owe our existence as a separate entity in Western Christianity to the precipitate actions of a lustful murderous King. If we’d needed a concensus of the entire Church to reject the authority of the Pope, the Anglican Church wouldn’t exist, so it’s odd to hear an Anglican appeal for worldwide concensus on OOW. Why… Read more »