Rowan tells Orthodox: 'Stay loyal to sacramental communion'

The Archbishop of Canterbury has written an important letter to John Howe, Bishop of Central Florida, in response to the plans of several churches in the diocese to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church in the US. Full text below. Also read articles in The Living Church and the Lakeland Ledger, the local paper in Florida. 'Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor,' he says. Andrew Goddard's article for Covenant Communion gives an insight into where all this is, or rather should be going, from Lambeth's perspective.

Dear John

I’ve just received your message, which weighs very heavily on my heart, as it must - though far more so - on yours. At this stage, I can say only two things. The first is that I have committed myself very clearly to awaiting the views of the Primates before making any statement purporting to settle the question of The Episcopal Church’s status, and I can’t easily short-circuit that procedure. The second is that your Rectors need to recognize that this process is currently in train and that a separatist decision from them at this point would be irresponsible and potentially confusing. However, without forestalling what the Primates might say, I would repeat what I’ve said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such. Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor. Action that fragments their Dioceses will not help the consolidation of that all-important critical mass of ordinary faithful Anglicans in The Episcopal Church for whose nurture I am so much concerned. Breaking this up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision.

Do feel free to pass on these observations to your priests. I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’. I think that if more thought in these terms there might be more understanding of why priests in a diocese such as yours ought to maintain their loyalty to their sacramental communion with you as Bishop. But at the emotional level I can understand something of the frustration they doubtless experience, just as you must.

With continuing prayers and love,

+Rowan

Comments

[Tregonsee]

The "abstract reality of the ‘national church’" otherwise known as TEC wields a very concrete fist in terms of legal action, both secular and canon. +Cantuar has on several occasions missed opportunities to respond to this practical reality.

[Marshall Scott]

We need to hear more clarification on all of this. How does this not undermine the meaninful reality of provincial structures - including that of the Provinces of Canterbury and York? How is this relevant in recent events and results in Southwark, for example? I also have always understood that the diocese and not the congregation is the basic unit of the Church; but without denying the reality and value of the province. Tregonsee is correct above: we need to hear more to really understand the meaning of this.

[A Renegade Priest]

Such dissafiliations are only happening because of the determination of TEC's leadership to impose it's pesrpective.

What I find perplexing is that TEC is tearing itself apart over the gay issue (which, after all, is a pastoral not doctrinal matter, in spite of the fact that the doctrinal split happened in 1988 with the consecration of women bishops.

Now before I enquire into who my bishop is married to, bethrothed to, partnered to,(or indeed sleeps with) I want to know that my Bishop, is a bishop, and that those ordained by the said bishop are priests.

It seems that ECUSA have swallowed the Camel of female episcopate, and are now straining the gnat of the sexuality of bishops and priests

[Chris Gillibrand]

"abstract reality of the ‘national church’" - amazing words from the Primate of the Church of England.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Pity dioceses had not been allowed to opt out when the Church of England was constituted by Parliament in 1559. In fact the majority of the episcopate then refused to renounce the Catholic Church.

Anglicanism was constituted as a national Church....and the Church of England still is, no matter what Doctor Williams " muses."

[Steven]

"Rowan tells Orthodox" is another example of the neglect in the West and at The Times of the existence of that Church which is in fact the Orthodox -- inter alia and most obviously of Greece and Russia. "Rowan tells orthodox" carries less drama but reminds of a certain truth.

[MaryCunningham]

In his book "Jesus of Nazareth" Benedict XVI wrote of the three strands of Christianity: Byzantine-Orthodox,Roman Catholic, German Protestant. This last--and newest--category were/are very much national churches and the Church of England and TEC falls in this category, wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury notwithstanding.

[Peter Farrington]

"Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology..."

Surely the problem which the Anglican communion faces is that it does not universally embrace Catholic theology and never has done. If it's theology were truly Catholic then we would not have the present muddle.

And as Steven says, Orthodox with a capital O might normally be expected to refer to the Orthodox Churches, and to the Russians and Greeks I will add my own Coptic and British Orthodox Churches.

At one recent Glastonbury pilgrimage an Anglican bishop was heard to call out when the photos were being arranged ... stay close to the Coptic Orthodox ... now if the Anglicans did that, and if +Rowan was urging sacramental and theological union with Orthodoxy then that would be a real story.

Otherwise, how can Catholicity be urged when the Anglican Church is patently not Catholic.

[Tom Jackson]

Something which can be really distressing to someone who simply believes he is trying to walk along a path that Jesus Christ has laid out is when Christians debate whether or not they should be walking on the left or the right side of the path, should they be walking face forward or backwards, wearing shoes or not, eating while they walk or fasting and so on.

Of course, I am not so simplistic about Christianity that I cannot appreciate some of the characteristics that one Church may not appreciate about another but at the end of the path stands Christ, waiting to welcome a Catholic, an Anglican, a Methodist or any other Christian who has taken that route. Is the fact that I don't look upon the Pope as infallible mean Christ will reject me?

I just hope that everyone who starts out gets to the end and has not got lost because their theology has blinded them to their faith.

[Peter Farrington]

Tom, what if it is not the path which Christ has laid out though? I also hope that everyone who start out gets to the end, but not all ways are the same. It is a dangerous thing to abandon the Apostolic faith for anything else, and those who make of Christ merely a good example preach another gospel that is no Gospel at all.

On the other hand I do not believe that we are saved merely by believing propositions, rather than believing in Christ.

But if too many propositions are abandoned then there is no Christ left to believe in.

I am glad to be Orthodox because I'd rather trust those who clearly taught the Apostolic faith. I celebrate the witness to Orthodoxy wherever I find it whether partially or completely. But just as many of us (in a variety of communities both Orthodox and non-Orthodox) are on a journey into the Apostolic Faith, others are being led in a different direction that has no power to transform.

[stephen clark]

the debate about the word 'orthodox' could be paralleled by a debate about the word 'catholic', and indeed the word 'Anglican'.
I, for example, am in favour of women's ordination (to all three orders), and of blessing same-sex relationships (probably leaning towards 'marriage' but still thinking it through).
My orthodoxy and catholicity stems not from these things (I believe) but from my Trinitarian Faith, and my acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus Christ which increasingly demands that I understand what is true and what is universal. And it is not that God loves some and hates others.
Orthodoxy and Catholicity, it seems to me says that "God so loves the world...that everyone might have eternal life!"
As for Anglicanism. Well I have the conventicle of the Pope of the so called Traditional Anglican Communion within my parish. I just wish someone would take them to court for misleading advertising or breach of copyright or something...all three of them!

[Peter Farrington]

The trouble is that Orthodoxy and Catholicity are not limited to a belief in the Trinity and in the Lordship of Christ.

Anglicanism fails to maintain that which has always been taught, in all places and by all people, which is the measure of catholicity.

To make modern choices about what will and will not be believed is the very opposite of catholicity and becomes a heterodoxy.

[MaryCunningham]

I think we covered a little of this subject a few months back in “you are not a proper church” before all sane commentary perished, as so many ‘discussions’ in the Articles of Faith do, in an avalanche of anti-Catholic diatribes led by the usual suspects. What differentiates the German-Protestant branch of Christianity from its Orthodox and Catholic counterparts is the Church itself and what the Church claims for itself. Edward Norman wrote in “Secularization” (now there’s a book people should read) that Christianity at its heart is a fixed body of uniquely revealed truths, truths delivered by God Himself whilst He was on earth to his people, the People of God.

But who has the authority to verify and interpret these truths?

Who tells us exactly what He said, and, as importantly, he meant given that he mostly spoke in parables?

And are these Revealed truths open ended, i.e. must they continuously be reinterpreted by successive generations?

To these questions the Catholic church would answer: the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, no.

An Orthodox Church would answer: the Orthodox Church,the Orthodox Church , no.

OTOH a German-Protestant Churches would answer: Christian Churches, Christian Churches, yes (unless they are fundamentalist).

So you can see the two ancient churches are set apart from the newer arrival in their approach to the knowledge that lies at the very heart of Christianity. There are other differences, the sacramental approach to grace, the place of Mary, the presence of religious objects in worship, &tc. which I’ve not space to cover, but I think the above is the most important difference. As Peter F. wrote: “I am glad to be Orthodox because I'd *rather trust those who clearly taught* the Apostolic faith.” [Emphasis mine.]

[Peter Farrington]

I should add that I am always grateful for the witness of faithful Christians in all the churches who bear witness to a life lived in Christ. It was the witness of such folk who brought me to faith in Christ, and I continue to meet and correspond with devout, sincere and committed Christians who are not Orthodox.

But coming from a Plymouth Brethren background into Coptic Orthodoxy (such a move could only have been of God, I'd never have planned it), I am aware that the Church is no longer something I can work to make in my own image and as I like, but it has become something that I am moulded by and which forms me into the image of Christ (God willing).

I am Orthodox because I believe I have found the safest and best place for me to become a Christian, not because I think I am better than others, because I know I am not.

And so theology matters to me since what we believe and how we believe affects our life in Christ, indeed the sort of Christ we believe in. If we believe in the Prosperity Gospel featured on many Sky Cable channels then we believe in a certain Christ - and I am not convinced that it is the true Christ, and we become a certain type of Christian - and I am not convinced it is a true type of Christian.

So what we believe matters, and I'd rather trust those who clearly taught the Apostolic Faith.

[Pr. Bill Pierce]

Dear Mrs Gledhill,
Grace and peace to you.
Thanks for all your timely reporting. I appreciate your hard work and dedication to Christ's Church, and its unity which you seem to me to be committed to, thanks be to God.
The next time you have a report to publish that might (even with the slimmest of connection) lend itself to a Monty Python lampoon, I'm putting my request in for the Dirty Vicar.
Blessings to you,
Pr. Bill Pierce

[Stephen Clark]

My point above about orthodoxy and catholicity, is when do we actually begin to understand that the doctrine of the Trinity, the Lordship of Christ, The Resurrection...tell us more about what is orthodox and what is catholic than changing social mores.
Peter Farrington accuses Anglicans of making 'modern choices'about what is and what is not to be believed. The truth is that there has always been the need to reinterpret ancient practice and belief. If that were not so we would still be circumcising converts!

[Peter Farrington]

Circumcision was a type and shadow of the baptism that unites us with Christ. It was not simply a cultural practice that needed re-interpreting in the light of changing social mores. The type was replaced by the reality.

The trouble with the choices that the Anglican Church has made is that they have usually never been in accord with the teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Church. Why was the Oxford Movement and Roman Catholicis so much opposed and even persecuted if Anglicanism was naturally Catholic in faith and practice.

Going back to the rejection of baptismal regeneration in the 19th century. Or even further back to the practical rejection of all catholic eucharistic theology. The present issues of sexuality are just a modern symptom of the same lack of a real organic connection to the Orthodox Catholic faith.

There have been in just this past year or so, reports of Anglican priests who are also either Wiccan or Muslim. How could this possibly be? And it is well known that there are Anglican priests and bishops who reject the resurrection, the virgin birth, and all orthodox theology and are even functionally atheist.

This does not mean that there are no orthodox and faithful bible believing Anglicans but it does surely mean that Anglicanism as a system cannot claim to be Catholic Apostolic and merely re-interpreting the ancient truth for modern times. It is doing nothing of the sort while it allows priests and bishops to deny the Catholic Apostolic truth.

If we were only talking about changing the language of the liturgy or using modern technology like websites, that would be one thing. But when we are talking aout changing the substance of the faith then that is something different altogether.

Another reason I am Orthodox is that most of the issues tearing Anglicanism apart (and it is sorrowful to see) are non-questions for Orthodox, even while Orthodox are also engaging successfully with the modern world.

[David Cohen]

Peter, there have been recent reports of a Roman Catholic archbishop married to a Moonie, and possibly even a member of that barmy sect: how could this possibly be?

Does that mean that the RC Church has ceased to be Catholic?

[MaryCunningham]

Dear David Cohen,

Didn't you read my--well, actually I was quoting Pope Benedict--words of wisdom? There are three strands/branches/call-them-what- you-will of Christianity. The Byzantine Orthodox (maybe twenty national churches all derived from the original Greek Christian Church. Early Christianity was as much Greek as it was Jewish, maybe more), Roman Catholic (one church descended from the Christian Church of the Western Empire) and German Protestant ('begun' by Martin Luther but almost immediately fragmented into hundreds of churches. Now there are maybe 30,000.)

Peter is Orthodox.

Your 'question' concerned Catholics. Roman Catholic priests are required--required!in the Catholic not the Anglican anything-goes sense--to be
1) educated,
2)celibate.
An archbishop married to a Moonie fits neither requirement so he is definitely not Catholic.