Yesterday the Archbishop of Canterbury was speaking in Rome and launched a most extra-ordinary address! I say extraordinary because the usually taciturn, gentle and measured Archbishop transformed into a strident, unapologetic and even cheeky orator! Why he even suggested Rome should adopt Anglican practice and start ordaining women! I did not know whether to be impressed, amused or outraged! As one clever spark commented elsewhere- this was akin to Gordon Brown lecturing the Chinese on sustaining a growing economy and upholding prudent economic practice!
For in depth analysis- pop over to the Sevenoaks blog and ponder Fr. Ivan’s words. As he has done such a fantastic job it is pointless my doing the same. Instead I offer three pithier thoughts that entered my own little head. Obviously this is personal reflection and I do not claim to understand the real motivation of the unfathomable Archbishop!
1) My first reflection is that, whilst this was addressed to a Roman Catholic audience, it was not meant for them. This smacked of a robust defence of Anglicanism intended to demonstrate, to watching media and a people back home, that Rowan is a force to be reckoned with. The impression given that his church is not the crumbling mess many are claiming but a wonderful communion worthy of emulation for its diversity and wisdom.
Now ++Rowan is well within his rights to do this and I commend him for it. I see here an attempt to get talks between two communions back on the track. If Rome has given up on Anglicanism as worthy of full communion, which it clearly has due to the ordination of women and practising homosexuals, Rowan must shift the goalposts. His plea is no longer for full communion, rendered impossible, but for a new focus on first and not second order issues. This becomes a plea not to totally give up on one another and I do hope that message is headed, as I am certain it will be. We Christians must be charitable with one another- an aspect often sadly lacking in these days of increasing uncertainty.
But what was intended as a noble defence of Anglicanism then descended into farce in my opinion. It lacked force, not because of the Archbishop’s integrity per se, but due to the lamentable reality of the situation at home. How can ++Rowan hold up Anglicanism as ‘model institution’ when it is so fractured at this time? Why would anyone ape it, as he encourages them to do, when it is unable to heal its wounds or gather around one altar? Thus the suggestion that Rome should adopt the ordination of women, sounded as ridiculous as it did delusional. If he really was speaking to Rome and expecting them to listen, then I suggest a visit to a psychiatrist is in order!
2) I would also highlight the point raised by Fr. Ivan. Why does the Archbishop commend use of separate structures as a menas of peace, when his own Synod and House of Bishops refuses precisely that option to Anglo-Catholics at home? If he has confidence in this, which shows wisdom, why has he not strongly defended our cause? ++Rowan cannot have it both ways! If he endorses the Revision Committee’s decision to offer us nothing, save a lousy code of practice, then he can hardly spout off about alternative provision elsewhere.
3) Finally I am amazed the Archbishop speaks so stridently in favour or women’s ordination, without aknowledging that the innovation is still meant to be in a period of reception and has inflicted such deep wounds in his own church. It would seem he is declaring the ‘process of reception’ over without waiting for the Universal Church to accept it also! Is this not huberis and a direct contradiction of his own advice?
And so we reach the thorny problem at the heart of this address. Rowan encourages Christians to grow together through obedience and love. Perfect…only he says this as unrepentant leader of a Church in blatant disregard for obedience to scripture, tradition and the mind of the Universal church. The hypocrisy is therefore breathtaking. Here is the Anglican leader, presiding over a church which sticks fingers up at critics and consecrates active gay divorcees and women, preaching to others about obedience.. so, as I said at the outset, cheeky! And hence my unease when I read it. It seems a little akin to Robert Mugabe preaching to the UN regarding a need to tacjle corruption!
As ever I cannot pin our Archbishop down. Is he a tortured Catholic doing everything in his power to turn an ailing church around? Or is he a very clever liberal who hides behind foggy words and an impressive intellect- deliberately playing for time as change is ushered forth. His unwillingness to tackle issues suggest this might be true. Either way I pray for him as he meets with Pope Benedict today. May they work for peace and seek a solution within Anglicanism that finds a sincere home for Anglo-Catholics which can clear the way for women bishops et al elsewhere!
It was good to hear Rowan on sparkling, robust and slightly less cerebral form following his recent rough treatment from Rome, and tackling them head on about women’s ordination:
“And the challenge to recent Roman Catholic thinking on this would have to be: in what way does the prohibition against ordaining women so ‘enhance the life of communion’, reinforcing the essential character of filial and communal holiness as set out in scripture and tradition and ecumenical agreement, that its breach would compromise the purposes of the Church as so defined?”
The Church would be much the poorer without men like him, and women like Judith Maltby, today challenging biblical literalism by reference to – the Bible.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/21/face-to-faith-creation-museum
Glad this impressed you Rod, I guess you are lucky to be in a majority within Anglicanism and assured of many places where you can have your views endorsed.
It is a bit harder for us who, though members of the C of E, have grave problems with the recent decisions of Anglicans and wish to be faithful to the Catholic faith represented by Pope Benedict.
We must each pray for the other, especially at local level, and especially show compassion to those feeling the crunch – the sort of people the ordinariate reaches out to. After all they have the big questions before them and the real possibility of being unchurched.
Hopefully we can all hold togeher but if not we must consider those left with nothing as well as those who have a plethora of churches to choose from in accordance with their views.
“My first reflection is that, whilst this was addressed to a Roman Catholic audience, it was not meant for them…”
If he was in Rome, adressing Roman Catholics but speaking to Anglicans, he insulted Roman Catholics.
“Thus the suggestion that Rome should adopt the ordination of women…”
If he was really speaking to Roman Catholics, he insulted all Roman Catholics, too.
I’m very angry about his speech. What kind of “catholicity” is he talking about? What kind of “ministry”?
“…the Archbishop commend use of separate structures as a means of peace”…
PEACE, but not COMMUNION. That’s not what the Pope is talking about in Anglicanorum Coetibus. In fact, you can not have “peace” in the Church if you don’t have “communion”.
His speech was not Catholic at all.
One can only hope that our now “strident, unapologetic and even cheeky orator” will roar at his Anglican donkeys so that they know he is their leader, not Ms Rees.
Petros
Sorry old boy, just stating my view, not intending to rub salt in any wounds.
Rod
glad to hear it! We all deserve a view but undeniably current events are harder on some than others!
Why is it that some Christians take great delight in wounding others?
Also reported in The Guardian was Archbishop Vincent Nichols warning of possible difficulties for those thinking of accepting the Papal offer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/20/anglican-rebels-catholic ,
something else for the self satisfied to taunt their brothers and sisters with judging by past experience.
As for using Archbishop Rowan in an attempt to gain points we would all be better off praying that he will find a way to keep us together despite the best efforts of some to have us kicked out.
Petros
Petros,
You probably know that I am a liberal who wants to keep you with us and who has consistently argued for this on TA and elsewhere (including the church I go to, where as far as I know only one person [himself FiF] agrees with me). It seems, to me, however, that the wounding and taunting is far from one-directional. Consult me on an earlier thread here about the phrase ‘Damn them’ or the comments on almost any of Jeff Steel’s postings or the remonstrations of ‘Anglocatholicus’ on an earlier thread.
The truth is that we all ought to behave better in this regard – and that includes the Administrator of this blog.
Again, sorry if my comments sounded like point scoring, they were not intended as such. I perhaps did not express myself very well – this was the point I was trying to make:
Whatever you think of the Anglican Church as a whole, RW personally was badly treated by Rome in the way they introduced the constitution. So I was glad to see him on assertive form when he visited Rome. I also thought that his challenge – to ask exactly how the prohibition of WO enhances the Church, and how its breach would damage it – gets to the nub of the matter for those of us on the other side of the debate. That’s all.
I love your points John and agree with what you say, but it was not I who said damn them! Further
ore father steele is no longer one of us. Just for the record. but yes emotions have run high a d it brings out the worst in all of us, last week I WAS enraged at the revision committee’s report. Indeed am stl reeling that they offer nothing just when we need it.
Rod thanks for the Clarification I see your point and agree with parts of it!
Hello John,
My remarks were intended generally and were not directed at anyone in particular although I understand that it may have appeared so due to the accident of timing when my contribution was posted.
I haven’t been been keeping a score card and have no idea if one person should feel more guilty than another, after all we all share our burden of guilt. I was merely making the plea that we work together in love and mutual respect to hold on to what little is left of the Anglican Church we all love regardless of our differences.
Petros
Dear Fr Ed
I should be interested in your response to the remarks made by the archbishop of Westminster the other day that [conversion to Roman Catholicism] “…must be a positive desire in the heart – not questions of the ordination of women to the episcopate, not questions of sexual ethics – but it must centre round the understanding of the role of the office of the bishop of Rome. A person must be embracing of that concrete aspect of Catholic life, which is the authority of the Holy See in the person of the pope, if they are going to make this journey with integrity. Nothing is envisaged in this provision of a minimalist approach to picking bits of the Catholic faith I like and seeing myself as a quasi-Catholic, not a real Catholic, under the umbrella of this constitution.”
You have made it abundantly clear on your blog, ever since I have been reading it, that you are unhappy about the direction in which the CofE is moving, and the main reason for your unhappiness is the imminent arrival of women bishops, and the Church’s failure to provide proper provision, as you see it, for those of an orthodox catholic faith. The issue of practising homosexual priests comes a close second.
How would you have responded if the archbishop had made his comments to your face?
Best wishes
John
Of course John, I would respond by inviting the Archbishop to Saint Barnabas. There he would find a church which has long had the Pope’s photograph in the sacristary, which has only ever taught from the Catechism, uses Roman Rite as well as the Old English Missal, celebrates the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, proclaims the immaculate conception every Sunday at Benediction and which has never used Common Worship. I am fairly certain he would smile and aknowledge that we are EXACTLY the type of parish the ordinariate might serve well. I would have thought that you would have gleaned that much by now!
As remarked by one parishioner yesterday the irony is that by moving we might stay the same- but by staying the same we are being forced to accept a doctrine that is not Catholic and the end of our expression of faith. I would also argue that my distress at the movement of the Church of England is not centred on the symptoms of women priests or anything else, rather that the CHurch is growing ever more liberal and protestant and thus not Catholic. For to me Catholicism involves doctrine and not just dressing up.
“There he would find a church which has long had the Pope’s photograph in the sacristary, which has only ever taught from the Catechism, uses Roman Rite as well as the Old English Missal, celebrates the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, proclaims the immaculate conception every Sunday at Benediction and which has never used Common Worship.”
Pusey must be spinning in his grave!
Tell us, why again do you wish and claim to be a member of the Church of England? (apart from the chance to marry, nice house and better stipend?)
‘We work together in love and mutual respect to hold on to what little is left of the Anglican Church we all love regardless of our differences.’
I am 100% in agreement with this.
John.
Please refrain from the snide comments! One could also come to Saint Barnabas and enjoy Evensong, the English Missal with BCP prayer of institution, Marbeck and Shaw’s Mass settings, Eastward facing Mass and enoy many favourite Anglican hymns. We are as I have often said Catholi-Anglicans – and that is why being forced to choose one or other is so profoundly painful. Why not come and join us one Sunday and see for yourself….for those who do all speak of a profound sense of holiness and sincerity. Blogs may not always convey that very well. We are what we are -not for political but historic reasons and simply want to remain so.
The ABC’s comments were clearly meant for Anglican consumption. No Catholic commentator seems to regard them as being anything more than an uncharacteristic attempt at machismo. He was clearly playing to his own ‘progressive’ constituency that has presumably demanded a strong response and may become even more important in the near future. He sounded as though he was reading a script written by and for someone else (Katherine Jefferts Scary?)