Pope rules ok. Or, 'Growing Together in Unity and Mission'

The headline refers to this story on the front of today's paper. It is of course with a sense of irony that beneath it I post this AP photo of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori at Zanzibar, where the Primates went on the penultimate day of their Tanzanian sojourn. Nigerian Primate Peter Akinola was absent for health reasons, but it did not go unnoticed that Dr Williams and Bishop Schori sat together on the bus on the way back. More photos at Anglican Mainstream. Andrew Goddard has written a reflection on the TEC paper for Fulcrum. Although all could yet change when the Anglican Covenant materialises, and although the significance of seven Primates not communicating should not be underestimated, the schism about which so many have speculated has not yet materialised. n our leader today we predict 'bitter fudge', but the conservatives are not happy, in particular about this letter to one of the seven non-communcating Primates from a former friend of 30 year standing, cancelling an invitation to preach on Palm Sunday. (Update: Some blogs are reporting that Jim Rosenthal has claimed in Dar es that this report was out over a week ago. In fact, as the Church of England confirms in a statement, linked to below, the report is not out yet but will in due course be published in book form by the Commission. It can however be read in full via a link on Anglican Mainstream. Readers can assess it for themselves. )

Bloggers following this story already include Whispers in the Loggia, the Spirituality Blog, StandFirm, Indelible Ink, CurrentChristian, La Place Ramz, The Race is Run, The Continuum, Catholic not Roman, Bible Belt Blogger, Christian Research, American Anglican Council, Romans 12:2 and Thinking Anglicans.

It is yet possible that Dr Rowan Williams, in putting the Gospel mandate for unity before all else including his own one-time liberalism on the gay issue, might yet triumph. And then I think it relevant to ask, where next? Could it be that this mild-mannered Archbishop has a mission for unity which reaches far beyond the Anglican shores and its 78 million adherents? I ask this, having just read and written about the first agreed statement from Iarccum, the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission. The 42-page report is called Growing Together in Unity and Mission. It is not available online yet as it is still being considered by the Vatican. I've reproduced a few pars below. As ecumenical reports go, it is something of a stunner. It cuts through the theology (as in Arcic) to get to the practical meat, or should I say bread and wine, of communion. And wouldn't that be something for Rowan Williams, who had one of his senior staff members, Canon Jonathan Gough, on the commission, to be remembered for. Could he be the man who not only keeps the Anglicans together, but brings Anglicans and Catholics back together after a 400-year-split? It does make me wonder.

The co-chairs of Iarccum have responded today, Monday, to this story. In their statement they make the point that their document draws on the Arcic document The Gift of Authority. I've managed to dig out liberal Catholic Margaret Hebblethwaite's original analysis of the Gift, published in May 1999. She wrote then: "I am initially reluctant to add to Arcic's difficulties. But in this agreement, The Gift Of Authority, I believe it has lost its head. Knowing from experience that Rome is not ready to compromise, it has gone for appeasement. Everything most obnoxious to Anglicans about the Catholic view of authority is here. The right and duty of the Bishop of Rome to make solemn definitions of the faith is commended with the pious hope: 'We believe that this is a gift to be received by all the churches'."

Arguing that the latest document draws on Gift as a main source would rather tend to back up my story in today's paper than knock it down, I think.

Here are some of the most interesting passages of the document for you to enjoy. The Preface outlines the background. Iarccum was set up after a meeting between George Carey and Cardinal Edward Cassidy at Mississauga in Canada, with the aim of focusing on the agreements discerned by Arcic "to draw out how they compel us towards joint witness and mission in the world."

Although not an authoritative declaration, it is intended to be more than a statement. The co-chairs, RC Archbishop of Brisbane John Bathersby and Anglican Bishop of the Highveld David Beetge say in the preface: "It is a call for action, based upon an honest appraisal of what has been achieved in our dialogue. Despite our present 'imperfect communion', there is, we feel, enough common ground to take seriously how we work together. Iarccum, as an episcopal commission, is offering practical suggestions on the way in which Anglican and Roman Catholic ecumenical participation can be appropriately fostered and carried forward."

They note that it is 40 years since Archbishop Michael Ramsey paid the first formal visit of an Archbishop of Canterbury to the Pope since the Reformation. "Behind the divisions of the Reformation lay 1500 years of communion in faith and witness. The time is ripe for reflection, which leads to intensified action."

1. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that God desires the visible unity of all Christian people and that such unity is itself part of our witness. Our churches share a commitment to work for that unity in truth for which Christ prayed (John 17).

2.... Through this [Arcic] dialogue over 40 years Anglicans and Roman Catholics have grown closer together and have come to see that what they hold in common is far greater than those things in which they differ.

4... Its purpose [of the Mississauga meeting] was to address the imperative for Christian reconciliation and healing in a broken and divided world at the beginning of a new millennium .. and to chart a way forward for the future.

[In the next few pars, the members go on to say that given the difficulties in the Anglican Communion over gays and women's ordination, they cannot formally sign a 'Joint Declaration of Agreement' as originally hoped. This statement is as far as they can go. Nevertheless, it still goes quite a long way.]

17... The Church's living of communion is therefore a vital part of its mission, and mission is harmed when communion is lacking.

18... We are therefore irrevocably committed to the re-establishment of full visible unity.

25... In our search for unity, the goal of the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion is to come together n a common confession of Apostolic faith and a shared sacramental life  with a common ministry of oversight. The sharing of those inter-related elements will serve and strengthen the Church's witness in mission.

71...Anglicans rejected the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the 16th century.Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a re-united Church.

99... We, the bishops of Iarccum, invite Anglicans and Roman Catholics everwhere to consider the following suggestions. They are offered as practical examples of the kind of joint action in missionm that we believe our shared faith now invites us to pursue and which would deepen the communion we share.

100...Local churches may consider joint programmes for the formation of families... as well as preparing common catechetical resources for use in baptismal and confirmation preparation and in Sunday schools. We suggest that our local parishes regularly make a public profession of faith together, perhaps by renewing baptismal promises at Pentecost each year. We invite local churches to use the same baptismal certificate, and, where necessary, to review and improve those currently in use.

101... We encourage attendance at each other's Eucharists, respecting the different disciplines of our Churches... While this would take the form of non-communicating attendance in each other's churches, it would nonetheless initiate a renewed awareness of the value of spiritual communion.

102. We also encourage more frequent joint non-eucharistic worship, including celebrations of faith, pilgrimages, processions of witness (eg on Good Friday), and shared public liturgies on significant occasions.

103. We encourage Anglicans and Roman Catholics to pray for the local bishop of the other church as well as for their own bishop... We welcome the growing Anglican custom of including in the prayers of the faithful a prayer for the Pope, and we invite Roman Catholics to pray regularly in public for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leaders of the Anglican Communion.

111... Episcopal consultation and cooperation in the formulation of protocols for handling the movement of clergy from one Communion to the other is encouraged.

114. We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesial communion.

Comments

[Colonel Bain]

Hello Readers,
It really irks me when the major Churches can preach unity, an then call de Spiritual Indian and Native Americans culture beliefs "a step backward"? You cannot sort de wanting Children. Playing God!!
All Souls belong to the Almighty YHWH..
Giddup... Slow Light'n..

[Linda]

I agree with Martin (Jan. 19/11:37 p.m.) when he says:

Rome, however, could not accept the evangelical element, and so whilst I continue to believe that there will be some kind of Anglican reunion with the Church in due course, I think it will take the form of the High Church/Anglo-Catholic elements coming to Rome, perhaps retaining their own rite, following the implosion of Anglicanism, and that the evangelicals within Anglicanism will go off in another direction. For me, and I suspect for Rome, the existence of a large body of evangelical protestants within Anglicanism makes a full reunion, even on Uniate terms, impossible.

And what about the ordination of women? Will Anglicanism just stop it?

I think any reunion will be piecemeal, just because Anglicanism is, itself, so splintered.

With the qualification, of course, that the Holy Spirit could always take things in directions previously unforeseen!

[Martin]

"Who exactly, wants to hook up with Rome?"

Please, go your own way. Without the doctrinally dubious evangelicals Anglicanism would be free to rejoin the Church universal. You are an impediment.

[peter]

I can't believe anyone would be fool enough not to see this proposal for what it is: agitprop designed by the liberals to drive a wedge into the heart of their opponents. This proposal has no merit except to divide anglocatholics and evangelicals.
As a Catholic, I find it impossible to believe that any but the most extreme adherents of the '60s-style "hermeneutic of discontinuity" would embrace such ideas. Common catechetical materials? That implies that we have much more in common with Anglicans than we actually do. If Anglican prelates cannot sign on to Dominus Iesus, which is clearly a statement of fundamental belief, than all this will go nowhere. But as a hand grenade in the conservative Anglican camp, it may prove useful to some.

[Maduka]

Who exactly, wants to hook up with Rome?

Once again a few voices in the West want to impose their will on the rest of the World.

It ain't gonna happen.

[Martin]

"As it is, because most bishops in the AC have Apostolic Succession through Old Catholic bishops in the Union of Utrecht"

That is extremely dubious, and is not a contention which is accepted by Rome.

[Martin]

"Anglicans could -easily- become a third Rite within the Church, if they accepted fundamental things like the Real Presence."

This is the problem, though, isn't it? Whilst there are various parts of Anglicanism which do accept these fundamental doctrines, there are an awful lot who do not - people like the poster Mabuka, who is going on about being an evangelical and expressing a preference for joining extreme protestant groupings to reunion with the Church. The evangelical element within Anglicanism, which, as Mabuka points out, is large, although I do not know whether it is as large as she suggests, can never be accepted into communion with the Church because it rejects absolutely fundamental things, not only on the Real Presence but also often they reject the Apostolic Succession and the whole Catholic conception of priesthood. Some of them reject the sacraments. I simply cannot see how Anglicanism can ever become even an autonomous rite within the Church whilst retaining these elements. Frankly, I have never understood how Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals could belong to the same body, but Anglicanism is good at fudging matters of doctrine to everyone's satisfaction. Rome, however, could not accept the evangelical element, and so whilst I continue to believe that there will be some kind of Anglican reunion with the Church in due course, I think it will take the form of the High Church/Anglo-Catholic elements coming to Rome, perhaps retaining their own rite, following the implosion of Anglicanism, and that the evangelicals within Anglicanism will go off in another direction. For me, and I suspect for Rome, the existence of a large body of evangelical protestants within Anglicanism makes a full reunion, even on Uniate terms, impossible.

And what about the ordination of women? Will Anglicanism just stop it?

I think any reunion will be piecemeal, just because Anglicanism is, itself, so splintered.

[Martin]

"The Vatican continues to wage relentless war against the countries that defeated her Concordat partners, Germany and Italy."

What absolute arrant nonsense. The Church was persecuted in Nazi Germany, in case you hadn't noticed, by a regime obsessed with a semi-pagan ideology. The idea that the Church was at all favourable to any secular Italian regime from 1870 is also laughable. The Lateran Treaty was signed to end the isolation of the previous sixty years and because they were the most favourable terms that had ever been offered by any secular Italian government since the illegal annexation of the Roman State.

[Martin]

"Perhaps unfortunately, most converts' baptisms these days aren't conditional. Conditional baptisms really are 'just in case' - the assumption is that Protestant baptisms are usually valid, but just in case the minister did something mad we should go through a form which is definitely valid, prefaced by the conditional words."

When I converted I was not baptised at all - my baptism certificate appeared to confirm that the form used had been valid.

[Deb]

Noddy
Do you know any priests and nuns. I can asure you thats lots of them werent abusing children. Actually there were many fine people trying to combat it but you only seem to think that the whole catholis priesthood are abusers. yes there was wrong doing and it was finally stopped by brave catholics standing up to it.
Just chatting yesterday to a chap who was abused by his anglican choir master....perhaps we shouldnt become anglicans

[Noddy]

So, Anglicans are apparently to submit to the control of an institution that sytematically and deliberately covered up decades of child abuse by priests and nuns against children of both sexes, on several continents. An institution that apparently had no 'conscience' about engaging in that process, but has found one now about a handful of cases passing through its UK adoption agencies.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Surely every right-thinking Anglican will scream "no!" from the pews at this affront to the dignity of their church and to the dignity of Jesus Christ.

[boeciana]

A friend of mine, a convert anglican invited me to his ordination as a catholic priest by cardinal Hume . It was not given 'conditionally' as baptisms usually are, prefaced by the words "In case you are not....", even though he had an anglican priestly ordination behind him.

Perhaps unfortunately, most converts' baptisms these days aren't conditional. Conditional baptisms really are 'just in case' - the assumption is that Protestant baptisms are usually valid, but just in case the minister did something mad we should go through a form which is definitely valid, prefaced by the conditional words. It would be daft to do a conditional ordination, as in those circumstances the only 'just in case' would be... just in case Apostolicae Curae is wrong. Which would be inappropriate to say the least!

Well, I suppose most readers will know that. But just in case someone doesn't...!

[vynette]

From the front page - “We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesial communion.”

Unlike Eastern Christendom, some Western denominations seem oblivious to the fact that the Vatican, in all its long history, had never willingly ceded one scrap of authority or power. Only now, 42 years after Unitatis Redintegratio, and with the advantage of hindsight, can we see the results of their brilliantly designed and orchestrated ecumenical campaign - the Pope is publicly hailed as the single 'voice' of Christianity while all around his throne lie the bloodied remnants of the Reformation.

From the front page - "There are about 78 million Anglicans, compared with a billion Roman Catholics, worldwide. In England and Wales, the Catholic Church is set to overtake Anglicanism as the predominant Christian denomination for the first time since the Reformation, thanks to immigration from Catholic countries."

It is an illusion that the Second World War ended in 1945. The Vatican continues to wage relentless war against the countries that defeated her Concordat partners, Germany and Italy.

Adopting the tactic of exploiting the perceived weaknesses of these liberal democracies - equality, justice, the rule of law, and so on - she paralysed opposition in advance by a ceaseless hammering for the introduction of seemingly altruistic legislation of the anti-discrimination and multi-cultural sort.

All who knew her tactics well and voiced opposition were branded as 'racist' or 'indecent' or 'immoral' or, with a splendid display of self-righteous hypocrisy, as 'fascists.'

Having successfully captured the moral high-ground on the backs of cowering and/or naive legislators, the UN from without, and committed 'enablers' from within, the floodgates were opened to wholesale catholic immigration. Australia, for one, was once an overwhelmingly protestant country. Now it boasts a catholic majority.

Rome has conquered and is conquering on two battle fronts. Not only is she nullifying centuries of rightful protest against her iron fist and is enfolding within her maternal western bosom all her erring and hitherto recalcitrant children, but she has ensured that certain 'rebellious' countries will be permanently riven with such internal strife that their peoples will never again rise up with one united voice against tyranny.

Rome's 'divide and conquer' policy at its finest.

[John Penta]

I think what is often misinterpreted by non-Catholics (and even many Catholics) is just what is meant when we speak of the Orthodox (or the Anglicans, or whoever) accepting Papal primacy.

In 'day to day' matters, only the Latin Rite need seek Papal approval. However, in terms of the (broadly-termed) Eastern Rites, they're somewhat left alone. Rome still is watchful, still confirms the elections of bishops, authorizes the Eastern Churches' distinct code of Canon Law (which varies significantly from the Canon Law we all know in places), and so forth, but generally lets the Eastern Churches be themselves.

Only on -fundamental- questions does the Pope speak for the whole Church regardless of Rite, generally. By this I mean true 'infallibility' type things, such as the canonization of Saints, the declaration of dogma (The Immaculate Conception, for instance, or the Assumption of Mary), things like that.

Anglicans could -easily- become a third Rite within the Church, if they accepted fundamental things like the Real Presence.

To answer some other questions:

Boeciana: Married bishops are a no-go for the reason that Bishops are, theologically, thought of as 'married to their diocese'. Thus the ring they wear; as a general rule, a bishop serves in one diocese for life. (Exceptions do exist, but this is the ideal.) Obviously, you can't be married (well, you -shouldn't- be) to two different people at once. Same thing here.

Reordination: Necessary, but really simple. As it is, because most bishops in the AC have Apostolic Succession through Old Catholic bishops in the Union of Utrecht, it may or may not be necessary, actually, I think. The fly in the ointment there is women bishops. The consecration of female bishops is both invalid -and- illicit, not merely illicit, so the chain stops.

[TerryC]

Speaking as a Catholic of no particular authority my understanding of the problem from the Catholic side runs toward the Union of Brest-Litovsk .
I agree that Rome will not cave on the subject of female ordination or permit active homosexuals to minister. There is no barrier to a celibate homosexual being either a priest or bishop.
As for whether Anglican orders are valid or not, the reason they were declared invalid stems from two causes. The first was that the rubrics of ordination were changed to omit references to omission of references to the terms "high priesthood", "fullness of ministry" or "fullness of the priesthood". Should the Anglican Communion or a group thereof agree to revise the ordination rite that barrier would be overcome. The second barrier is that once the rite was declared invalid the Anglican lite lost apostolic succession.
Should both sides wish to change this all it would require would be for the Anglican side to agree to revise their ordination rite and Rome to agree to its validity. The problem from Apostolic succession on the Roman side could easily be solved by a Catholic bishop, with the concurrence of Rome simply reaffirming the rise to the episcopate of the Anglican bishop.
In my mind any full scale reunification of the Anglican Church should accept the Anglican Church as a separate rite co-equal with the Roman and other existing rites. In such an arrangement Anglicans would keep their own ceremonies and sacrificial rites (just as have the other rites in communion with Rome.)
Do I think it will happen? I don't know, as Gabriel said, "With God nothing is impossible."

[Fr David]

The Anglican & Catholic Co-Chairmen of the Unity Document reported in today's Times have commented "it is unfortunate that (it) has been prematurely reported in a way that misrepresents its intentions and sensationailses its conclusions"
Who am I to believe?
Ruth, or the two Bishops?

[Martin]

Surely the really difficult to overcome obstacles to unity are not the validity or otherwise of Anglican orders, or married clergy, as these could be quite easily dealt with. The ordination of women would be a real obstacle, but as long as this practice ceases that, again, need not be a permanent barrier. The real obstacles to unity are doctrinal, especially when you consider that a large element within Anglicanism consists of extremely protestant evangelicals who reject the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. I simply cannot see how any accommodation could ever be reached with these people, and Anglicanism cannot leave them behind as they form a wealthy and large section of its congregations.

[Maduka]

I would rather join with the Assemblies of God than with Rome. I am not alone, there are millions of evangelical anglicans like myself.

Please tell them to stop. Please tell them to do something worthwhile with their time

[Martin]

"while Benedict as Ratzinger had upheld Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, Benedict as Benedict can choose not to"

There had better be a good theological reason for such a volte-face. The position arrived at in Apostolicae Curae came as a result of painstaking theological and historical enquiry. I cannot see any reason for its reversal.

[Maduka]

Can someone PLEASE tell them to stop this Anglo-Catholic fantasy of unity with Rome.

The Anglican Communion is the worlds LARGEST evangelical denomination. (We've got a few liberals and anglocatholics by the side, but we are overwhelmingly evangelical).

Before all the useless talk about unity with Rome, someone should please do a survey of what the average Anglican thinks about it.

This is freaking me out. What in the world are we going to gain by uniting with Rome? Who mooted this crazy idea? What is it supposed to achieve?

The CoE should work on being relevant to the British people.

[Eric]

"As far as I know the orthodox church has no married bishops but has married priests; that's why Rome could allow married ex-anglican priests to join but the ex-bishop of London Graham Lennard had to forgo his episcopal rank. He is now plain Fr Graham Lennard."

Ah, but here is an opportunity for Benedict to undertake some innovative approaches to unity through consensus. Many Orthodox churches recognize the validity of Anglican orders, and while Benedict as Ratzinger had upheld Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, Benedict as Benedict can choose not to.

So Benedict could ask the Orthodox if they would consent to married Anglican bishops being accepted into full communion. The Orthodox may not have an objection, especially if it were a one-time thing with the understanding that no future married Anglican priests would be ordained bishops. Such an act would be a huge step not only for Anglicans, but the Orthodox would also be mightily impressed by being included in the decision.

Benedict has already described his vision of unity: "The unity that we seek is neither absorption nor fusion but respect for the multiform fullness of the Church, which must always be, in conformity with the desire of her Founder, Jesus Christ, one, holy, catholic and apostolic." With such a philosophy, the Anglican community could pretty much continue as it has, with its structure, liturgy and customs basically intact, while being in communion with Rome. And one could expect there would be little interference from Rome with its day-to-day workings, as the Orthodox would be caarefully watching how such an act of unity plays out in reality, as their cheif concern with unity is the meddling of the Roman Curia.

As to the question of ordination or conditional re-ordination, I suspect this may not be as big a hurdle as one might imagine. There are certainly any number of ways to deal with this question while still respecting the existing ministry of Anglican clergy. Recall the ancient description of the papal ministry as "presiding in charity."

Benedict said on his election that his main focus would be on Christian unity. He certainly realizes that how he approaches Anglicans and Orthodox are the main components to any major movement in this area. Whichever comes first will have huge implications for the other. By doing either right, he can unleash a revolution in the search for Christian unity. And I wouldn't underestimate his determination, nor his flexibility.

[Martin]

"I know that Rome has never rescinded Leo XIII's bull that Anglican orders and utterly null and completely void."

Indeed, and rightly so, for so they are. Of course any union would require the reordination of all Anglican clerics.

"This did not stop pope John Paul walking down the aisle of Canterbury Cathedral arm in arm with Rober Runcie as if they were fellow bishops"

Yes, but John Paul II was himself rather too close to the bone on these issues - for example he prayesd with other faith leaders at Assisi in a way which the current Pontiff has expressed his unhappiness with. Further, continental Catholics, having less exposure to Anglicanism than we English Catholics have had, often misunderstand it, its history and its doctrinal beliefs, and because it looks, sounds and smells like Catholicism (at least in its more traditional forms) they are at risk of being taken in by it. For this reason it is necessary that English Catholics who know what they are dealing with should give the lead to the Vatican when it comes to negotiating even any partion union, lest some innocent Italian without a full comprehension of the dangers should recommend a reunion on terms which compromise orthodoxy.

In short, the absolutely fundamental steps which would need to be taken by the Anglicans before any reunion would be to recognise papal authority, to agree to reordination en masse, to undertake not to ordain women or practising homosexuals, and to give undertakings on certain fundamental doctrines such as the Real Presence. In return it is possible that they could remain an autonomous body with their own rite.

[Fr David]

As the Anglican Communion's official website points out, the news story in the Times, about unity, sensationalises a discussion paper, and is therefore a non-story.
I am sorry that Ruth misleads in this way in our longed-for search for unity which should not be mis-represented.

(sorry Fr. but as the paper itself makes clear, it is an agreed statement, it is far more than a mere discussion document! I've also slightly edited one of your statements about me, as it did not accurately reflect my motives. Sorry again, but if I'm to stop contributors libelling each other I think I can exercise the same prerogative on behalf of myself...)

[ramachan]

Please find below a news item which has appeared today in 'The Times':

"Hospital mass grave found as India cracks down on female infanticide.

Jeremy Page in Delhi

Police in central India have found 390 body parts from foetuses and newborn babies — thought to be unwanted girls — buried in the backyard of a Christian missionary hospital".

The operative portion of the news item is that it had happened at a Christian Missionary Hospital.

Whether Christian or Hindu or Islam or Jewish, people are all the same, and very much the end result of the 'Selfish Gene'.

Organised religion has been the bane of human kind, all through the ages, as they tend only to exploit gaps in our knowledge of what goes on around us and with us.

The head of the Vatican Bank, Banco Ambrosiano, who was found hanged under the Blackfriars Bridge, was no different from Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters Union.

It is high time we recognised that organised religion is just like any other social organisation. It is of no significance whether the Anglicans join the Roman Catholics or the Melthodists or the Seventh Adventists or the Jesuits or any other.

All organised religions should be brought under strict laws of governance under any Parliamentary Democracy, so that they in no way influence the conduct of the Nation's affairs.

It is a great disservice to the nation that the Government has been nurturing Faith Schools in the UK.

The Faith Schools only serve to disrupt social cohesion. What we need is strictly secular education for the children, who should be exposed to moral codes and conduct applicable to all communities.

[Tony]

The continuing march of liberal agnosticsm is challenging many of what might be termed "traditional values". Orthodox belief is under fierce attack (viz the haemorrhageing of numbers from Sunday worship these past ten years). This surely has to be a crucial "driver" in our search for Christian unity. Benedict and Rowan understand that the situation is worrying to say the least.

Maybe within the sort of suggestions outlined in the "Unity and Mission" report the work of the Holy Spirit can be discerned.We cannot, indeed must not, allow the pessimism of either Mike Homfry or Robert Ian Williams prevent us from being bold. As brothers and sisters in Christ it is I believe vital that we start NOW treading the road towards reconciliation and visible unity.After all, we do know that is the will of Our Lord.

[PMcGrath]

It's the Union of Brest-Litovsk all over again!

(rg writes: see this link: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9016374/Union-of-Brest-Litovsk)

[Christopher]

Boeciana and Martin, I was being polite and not wanting to rub salt into the wound but I know that Rome has never rescinded Leo XIII's bull that Anglican orders and utterly null and completely void. This did not stop pope John Paul walking down the aisle of Canterbury Cathedral arm in arm with Rober Runcie as if they were fellow bishops or pope Ratzinger giving Rowan Williams a pectoral cross but I know that doesn't change a thing as far as Rome is concerned. A friend of mine, a convert anglican invited me to his ordination as a catholic priest by cardinal Hume . It was not given 'conditionally' as baptisms usually are, prefaced by the words "In case you are not....", even though he had an anglican priestly ordination behind him.

My slightly irreverent fear was that what happened to Rider Haggard's She when she stepped a second time into the fire that gave eternal life might happen to him but I'm glad to say it didn't
:-)

[Frank Schnittger]

What a clever man the ABC truly is! If there is one thing that can re-unite most evangelical and liberal Anglicans, it is a fear of a Roman takeover! Liberals would reject it because they cannot go into reverse on the equality issue. Some evangelicals still believe the Pope is the anti-Christ.

And why should Rome be interested in union with a fractured confederation of Churches ahead of a much easier theologically and historically more significant union with the Eastern Orthodox Churches?

The significance of the "Growing Together in Unity and Mission" document is not its immediate practicality, but in its prophetic statement of direction. It seeks to establish a fellowship between the Anglican and Roman Churches based not, initially, on Communion, but on practical initiatives on joint witness and mission. (Perhaps also a model the Anglican "Communion" should consider between Provinces that have fallen out with each other).

But as other posters here have already discerned, the development of closer relationships between the Anglican and Roman Churches will inevitably raise the thorny equality issue, and the de facto recognition of married and female Priests and Bishops that any relationship of mutual respect would entail. You cannot have a relationship of mutual trust and respect if you walk out every time a female Minister or married Bishop appears on the scene.

The response from Rome to the document will be extremely interesting. The Ratzinger of old might have dismissed it out of hand as being theologically muddled. But am I the only one to discern that Rome is not as married to the concept of Patriarchy as it once was, and might like to leave the door to greater equality open?

[Martin]

"How can Rome agree to this...would it qualify by saying Catholics should never attend an Anglican Eucharist presided over by a woman?
Would Catholics livng in area where the woman is a bishop, be asked to pray for her?

Would the Catholic faithful be told that they should not worship the Anglican consecrated elements. which in Catholic theology neither an Anglican women or male priest can validly confect.

Would joint catchetics of families warn against the evil of contraception?

Would Catholics be told the agreement is not allowed where the Anglican priest is openly gay and living withtheir partner.

If Rome agree to this , they have given de facto recognition to women priests.

How can you walk with someone you are not fully agreed with?

WE are often told that eucharistic sharing is the end of the ecumenical vision. To participate in joint eucharistic communion wthout full unity would be wrong"

I fully agree with all of this. Quite simply, so much of Anglican teaching is in error that it is impossible that Catholics could or should be encouraged to have anything to do with it.

I would strongly resist the idea that Catholics should attend Anglican eucharists, even as non-communicants. For one thing it might encourage them to do so instead of Mass, and for another as these eucharists are invalid it risks leading Catholics into error.

This is a pipe dream. Much as I would welcome the return of Anglicanism to the Church, it must and can only be upon a basis of orthodoxy. The manifold errors in which Anglicanism wallows surely prevent a full, corporate reunion, although some reunion with the Anglo-Catholic elements is possible and desirable, especially if Anglicanism breaks apart over the various issues it is currently at war over.

[Martin]

"So Akinola, Williams, Wright, Scott-Joynt, Nazir-Ali et al will be faced with a stark choice if they want to go down this route to unity with Rome: put aside their wives and embrace celibacy OR step down from episcopal rank and serve as simple priests under their local catholic ordinary."

The most obvious solution is that the Anglicans who are acceptable in doctrinal and disciplinary terms (i.e. not those who reject the Real Presence and the Apostolic succession, and not the "ordained" women) would join in a "uniate-style" arrangement and keep their own rite, as the group known as the "Traditional Anglican Communion" are apparently negotiating.

[Martin]

"As far as I know the orthodox church has no married bishops but has married priests; that's why Rome could allow married ex-anglican priests to join but the ex-bishop of London Graham Lennard had to forgo his episcopal rank. He is now plain Fr Graham Lennard."

Any Anglican clerics becoming Catholics had to be ordained as Catholic priests as obviously their Anglican "orders" are invalid. They are therefore "giving up" nothing. As for Graham Lennard, he has been given the rank of Monsignor, which allows him to wear the purple piping of a bishop.

[Jill]

I would have thought ARCIC dialogue was severely damaged when the Church of England ordained its first women as priests, and will be killed stone dead when we have our first woman bishop. My suspicion is that the Church of Rome is trying to throw a lifeline to distressed Anglicans who have seen the writing on the wall – unless of course anything dramatic happens today in Tanzania. I personally have seen five C of E families and one married priest depart for Rome in the last couple of months.

I certainly agree with Points 1 and 17, and even Point 71 to some degree in the current circumstances, but as for Point 2 and some of the others – well, there’s the rub. However, I was very pleased to see the Catholic Church being more welcoming. There are many of us who don’t know which way to turn; both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism seem rather forbidding to easy-going Anglicans, but perhaps this rather more open approach will entice more of us in that direction. I agree with John Penta that there will be no climbdown on WO but Mike Homfray is being disingenuous in presenting this as an ‘equality’ issue, when it is nothing of the sort, and it is principally WO that has opened the door to acceptance of other unscriptural practices. Perhaps the Orthodox Church will follow suit and open its doors a little wider. I certainly hope so.

However, it is unrealistic to think that any unity can happen overnight; this could take hundreds of years!

[boeciana]

So Akinlola, Williams, Wright, Scott-Joynt, Nazir-Ali et al will be faced with a stark choice if they want to go down this route to unity with Rome: put aside their wives and embrace celibacy OR step down from episcopal rank and serve as simple priests under their local catholic ordinary.

But if Catholicism is true, then the current Anglican episcopate is simply composed of laymen, because Anglican orders are invalid. They have no 'episcopal rank' to step down from! If they want reunion (and how I hope that they do!), the Anglican bishops would each individually have to think and pray about whether or not they actually have a vocation to the Catholic priesthood as opposed to the Anglican ministry, and moreover would have to discern whether they have a calling to celibacy. The former Anglican bp of London is 'just' a priest now because he became a Catholic, then became a Catholic priest - there is no particular reason why someone in his position should become a Catholic bishop by some special dispensation. This is not an issue that ought to affect corporate reunion in itself. Whether or not reunion would involve an 'Anglican rite' body within the Catholic Church is the underlying issue that could lead to questions about episcopal celibacy, I suppose.

(There is no absolute theological reason why there might not be married bishops, is there? Though it is undoubtedly a stronger and more beautiful sign when the episcopate is composed of vowed celibates.)

[Gareth Rhymes]

Sound Biblical teaching is the Churuch's chief role. Wheather this comees from Anglicans or Catholics matters little. However any over concentration on powerless ritual, not on the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross as the only way to be justified before God, should be abandoned. The Word of God is what matters, not either sides rituals. That was what the Reformation was about; God's Word being preached in an accesable form so all people can come to Him and here His saving Good News.

[Deb]

In this diocese, there is absolutely no way that the vast majority of Anglicans would countenance unity with Rome

That has made me smile......do you know them all mike.....:)

In our parish and diocese there is something very special happening. All the churches are working together really well.We have russian orthodox, catholic,free church, methodists, CofE, apastolic, elim all working together. We have joint lent lunches with the catholics and our prayers for the area involve CofE, elim, methodist, new frontiers, catholic,and a free church.
I love it and we are seeing god impact a whole area.
We also have a soul in the city type thing locally where this year we expect 150 kids from about ten different churches.

[Paul Hamilton]

Anglicanism was never built to last and I do hope that this does cause some of our more protestant bretheren within the communion to examine the 'Protestant Heritage'. The more it is examined the more the shaky foundations of its construction will show. The goal has to be full unity.

[Robert Ian Williams]

How can Rome agree to this...would it qualify by saying Catholics should never attend an Anglican Eucharist presided over by a woman?
Would Catholics livng in area where the woman is a bishop, be asked to pray for her?

Would the Catholic faithful be told that they should not worship the Anglican consecrated elements. which in Catholic theology neither an Anglican women or male priest can validly confect.

Would joint catchetics of families warn against the evil of contraception?

Would Cathlics be told the agreement is not allowed where the Anglican priest is openly gay and living withtheir partner.

If Rome agree to this , they have given de facto recognition to women priests.

How can you walk with someone you are not fully agreed with?

WE are often told that eucharistic sharing is the end of the ecumenical vision. To participate in joint eucharistic communion wthout full unity would be wrong, like sex before marriage. However these proposals by way of analogy have the two participants lying together on the same bed! In Catholic theology that would be an occasion of sin.

[Christopher]

Ruth, I can see just one or two little flies in the ointment before full communion is achieved under Rome - setting aside for a moment all those evangelical Anglicans who still agree with the article that "the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England" and would refuse to budge. It is the problem of episcopal celibacy. As far as I know the orthodox church has no married bishops but has married priests; that's why Rome could allow married ex-anglican priests to join but the ex-bishop of London Graham Lennard had to forgo his episcopal rank. He is now plain Fr Graham Lennard.

Is it likely that Rome would jeopardise the greater goal of unity with the orthodox by unilaterally allowing ex-anglican married bishops? I very much doubt it. So Akinlola, Williams, Wright, Scott-Joynt, Nazir-Ali et al will be faced with a stark choice if they want to go down this route to unity with Rome: put aside their wives and embrace celibacy OR step down from episcopal rank and serve as simple priests under their local catholic ordinary. (Of course none of this makes mention of the already-ordained women, both priests and bishops)

If they opt to keep their episcopal status it is asking no greater sacrifice than they blithely demand of every gay man in the church - and what they ask of someone else....oughtn't they to be prepared to do it themselves?

I hope you are not holding your breath, Ruth.

[ROBERT]

WHOEVER THOUGHT WE WOULD SEE THE DAY WHEN AFRICAN MISSIONARIES WOULD COME TO THE US AND TEACH US THE TRUE GOSPEL?

[jim nuzzo]

sort of makes the issues at the primates' conference pale in comparison. i wonder what the queen thinks about all this...

[closet catholic]

More please!

[John Penta]

More, please, more!

One imagines the ordination of women will, er, complicate reunion, however, seeing as how unlikely any climbdown by Rome would be.

[Mike Homfray]

I find this mildly amusing.

In this diocese, there is absolutely no way that the vast majority of Anglicans would countenance unity with Rome.

All this will do is create another divide - and this time, evangelicals will be very sure to stress the protestant heritage of Anglicanism. In this, they will be joined by liberals who would not be prepared to abandon equality for women.

This is a non-starter. Typical of Williams - romantic, vascillating fool that he is.