Lambeth Diary: Ecumenicals condemn 'with love'

The Archbishop of Canterbury is shown here at last night's ecumenical service chatting to Russia's Archbishop Hilarion and the Greek representative. Cardinal's Kasper and Diaz from Rome are not here yet. As we touch on at the end of our Sunday Times story today, the messages to Dr Rowan Williams from the guests were light incarnate, but this merely to sweeten the bitter pills within. Will the Anglican Communion take their medecine? I doubt it. The letters were helpfully printed at the end of the order of service, some extracts are below. See also Riazat Butt's excellent and fuller report in The Observer.

(Photo by George Conger. See his report in Christianity Today on the 'crack-up' of the Communion. Many thanks to Peter Crumpler and staff for finding a way at the final hour to get the grateful press into the service in the Big Top.)

From Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State:

'The theme of your Conference,'Equipping Bishops for God's Mission', is a matter that goes to the heart of the well-being of the Anglican Communion. The ecclesiological questions  which form the framework of your deliberations are a reminder that ministry conferred by ordination is bound by the apostolic faith handed down from the beginning and by the 'regula fidei' faithfully transmitted, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the ages. Our different understanding of the divine plan for this ministry in the Church is one of the issues which the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission has been addressing for the past forty years. New issues that have arisen in our relationship pose a further and grave challenge to the hope for full and visible unity that has been the long-standing goal of our joint ecumenical endeavour. Thus in our recent Common Declaration (23 November 2006) we committed ourselves 'in our continuing dialogue to address the important issues involved in the emerging ecclesiological and ethical factors making [our] journey more difficult and arduous.'

From Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch

'We are aware that, during your forthcoming meeting, you will be devoting special consideration to the vocation and ministry of the bishop. For St Ignatius of Antioch, writing a few years before Hermas, the bishop - as presiding celebrant at the Eucharist in the local Church - is essentially the symbol and instrument of unity. Living as we do in an age of anxiety, at a time of rapid change and sharp controversy, it is often difficult for us as bishops to exercise our diakonia in an unifying way. With all our heart we as Orthodox pray that the present Lambeth Conference will prove to be a council of reconciliation and unity, an occasion for speaking the truth in sincerity and without compromise, yet an occasion for speaking the truth in love.'

From Patriach Alexy of Moscow and All Russia. (I am reproducing these from letters in the order they were printed in. Patriarch Alexy, along with the Archbishop of Cyprus, sent their letters written in the elegant, difficult scripts of their own tongues.)

'The topic of Christian morality, linked with that of gender, is high on the agenda of the present Lambeth Conference. There is intense debate about these issues among Anglican bishops, clergy and laity. It seems to me that members of the conference have a very serious task: they have to choose between the traditional, biblical norms of morality and tendencies which consider sin and general permissiveness as manifestations of love and tolerance. That is why there is laid on members of the conference such a great, historic responsibility.

'The decisions you will take today are of immense importance for the whole Christian world, for on them, in many ways, depends the future of the relations of many Christian churches and communities within the Anglican Communion. The outcome of the Lambeth Conference will have particular importance for the Russian Orthodox Church, for the history of our contacts with Anglicans goes back to the sixteenth century. As a rule it hass been marked by warmth and mutual understanding. I sincerely hope it will be possible to maintain such relations.'

I have to say I particularly loved the historicity of the letter from the Holy Archbishopric of Cyprus, which is represented here by Most Rev Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Kition:

'Unfortunately, after the Third Lambeth Conference, which was held in the year 1888, when a particular effort was made for the promotion of the relations between the Orthodox and the Anglican Church, no substantial progress has been made in this area though a most fervent desire for their union exists in both our Churches. The Orthodox Church of Cyprus, encouraged by the progress made at the time went ahead, as is known, in the year 1923 [and] recognised the validity of Anglican ordainments in the hope that this would be followed by more moves towards unity between our Churches.'

Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens wrote that the conference 'will have much to contribute on questions such as Episcope, episcopos and primacy; the Church and the Triune God: perspectives on heresy, schism and reception in Communion.....

'In addition to these important topics on the agenda, may I suggest that the Conference not lose sight of the fact that the current year is the year of St Paul. This provides the Conference with a stimulus and an opportunity to reflect upon the message and the theology of the apostle to the Nations, and to examine to what degree the Church has remained faithful or has deviated from the Pauline teaching and principles, given that most of Europe was originally evangelised by the apostle St Paul and has immediate need of re-evangelisation.'

And then there is this enigmatic note from His Holiness Aram I of Cilicia:

'We are living in a fast-changing world. The implications of unprecedented developments, in many areas of human life, to the church's ecclesiological, moral and missiological self-understanding are significant, indeed.'

There are more. I expect you get the message. Will the Anglica bishops?

Just as an aside, security is intense here and Kent police dealt with two 'incidents' at the conference. One English woman was gently 'removed' from the campus after attempting repeatedly to talk to the bishops about the Bible. A group of Germans also attempted a sit-in, and they too left after asked by police.

And a bit more on that retreat. Readers here will know that one characteristic of retreats is that they are generally silent. Well, thankfully for me at any rate, you can never silence an Anglican bishop. I am reliably informed that the gathered episcope listened quietly to the Archbishop's five lectures on Jesus and loving each other. This was a theme mirrored in his ecumenical homily where his voice was showing the strain with a slight hoarseness from all the talking he's been doing.

But as soon as the Archbishop stopped talking, the 650 bishops started. And they wouldn't stop. Apparently the nave became unbearably noisy with gossip. St Paul would have had a field day!

In the end, stewards had to separate the talkers from the silent. The naughty bishops were left in the nave, while the good bishops went in the 'quiet corner' behind the screen to meditate silently on Dr Williams' words of wisdom.

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

Comrade Krushchev did not have a precedent, Malcolm. We do. More than one!

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The Church of Rome certainly excels at maintaining its opinions "infallibly" until it suits it to change them - infallibly of course."
- Dr Alan Marsh, 28JUL 2008, 15:20:16

Name one.

[Malcolm+]

"We buried the Arians and the Pelagians, and we are now burying the Protestants. We will bury the Anglican Communion as well."

I recall a certain Comrade Kruschev similarly proclaiming that Soviet Communism would crush the West. Indeed, the precise quote (translated) is "we will crush you."

Turns out he was wrong.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Dear Doctor Marsh..no offence intended.. I have got Marsh and Marsden confused...

[Dr Alan Marsh]

"Doctor Marsh concludes:"Or I can depend on a bunch of empty assertions by a bishop in central Italy who was getting bad advice.""

RIW, you might at least have the courtesy to reply to the person who actually wrote this.

You do at least appear to have got the point that John Stott, like Hans Kung, is the author of his own opinions.

He does however exercise his ministry as a priest in the threefold Order, to which he has freely consented in offering himself for ordination, and as an incumbent in the Church of England.

Geoffrey tells us that he once did some study, many years ago. If only he did some reading nowadays he would know that the Orthodox certainly do not regard the ordination of women as a closed question.

The Church of Rome certainly excels at maintaining its opinions "infallibly" until it suits it to change them - infallibly of course. The late pope's opinion about the ordination of women, however much RIW and Geoffrey imagine it to be sort of infallible, will not be the last word.

I am too old to think that I might see a pope ordain a woman, but I am confident that it will happen - with all the infallible authority of some future pope, proclaiming that the Holy See always meant to do this but has now got around to it!

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Centralized authority is a very good method to maintain the illusion of order".
- Malcolm, 27 JUL 2008, 22:51:04

Are you reading this garbage, Mr Gordon Brown?

[Malcolm+]

Centralized authority is a very good method to maintain the illusion of order.

I prefer the decentralized messiness of Anglicanism any day.

[Malcolm+]

Centralized authority is a very good method to maintain the illusion of order.

I prefer the decentralized messiness of Anglicanism any day.

[Robert Ian Williams]

First apologies for all the typos in the last post.

Doctor Marsh asserts :"John Stott is a faithful Anglican who accepts the threefold ministry as it has been handed down through the ages.

As for his views on Cranmer, he no more speaks for Anglicanism than Hans Kung or Gutierrez speak for Rome."

John Stott does not believe in the Apostolic succession and a sacerdotal priesthood..read his book, the Cross of Christ...

John Stott has been an Anglican minister since 1945..

He has never once prayed for the dead.

He has never prayed to the Saints

Claimed to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass.

He has maintained that baptism is not regenerative...for 63 years of his ministry

Cranmer formed Anglicanism...and Anglicanism without him is like the Salvationists without William Booth and the Methodists without John Wesley!

Fortunately men like Kung have no say in the Magisterium and have hasd their title of Catholic theologian taken from them.

I would not go as far as Mr Smith and say that some of the English bishops were heretics...but they certainly seem to lack judgement...and the fruit of their ministry is poorly informed laity and a collapse in Mass attendance.

As for Rome ordaining women..that shows how little Doctor Marsh understands about the nature of the Catholic claims to authority.

Doctor Marsh concludes:"Or I can depend on a bunch of empty assertions by a bishop in central Italy who was getting bad advice."

All I can say if it were not for that Bishop in central Italy we would be in as bad a mess as the Anglican communion.

Where Peter is, there is Christ's Church

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It may take decades, or even centuries, but I have little doubt that Rome will ordain women one day, and once again fall into line with the Church of England".
- Dr Alan Marsh, 27 JUL 2008, 01:42:42

Your confidence that the Church of England has such a future is most commendable, Alan. Most commentators on this blog seem to be writing it off in a matter of months, perhaps as soon as the Lambeth bash has staggered to the end of its last indaba and they've all gone home.
What can I say to convince you that the Catholic Church will never - repeat, never - ordain women? That we are not alone in our refusal to do so? That the Orthodox Churches agree with us? That there is a whole host of doctrines that the world wants us to change, and our answer has always been "mind your own business"? Your attitude is nothing new, Alan. For the last two thousand years, the Church has been assailed from all sides by opponents who demanded that we must do this and we must do that, but we buried them all. The Church remains triumphant, as Our Lord promised her she would. Be warned, Alan. We buried the Arians and the Pelagians, and we are now burying the Protestants. We will bury the Anglican Communion as well.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Geoffrey, you do seem to have a problem with your bishops. I have seen a number of them in action liturgically over many years (not the two you mention) and the new rite is the same everywhere, unless one seeks out "shrine" churches, which are few and far between. The new rite is not "sacrificial" in character, and today's clergy are not the cultic presidents of a Tridentine mass.

You really are a very poor apologist for your Church: you seem to be stuck somewhere in time, say about 1960. Things have moved on apace since then.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Thank you, Geoffrey, for acknowledging that even your own bishops do not agree with you!"
- Dr Alan Marsh, 26 JUL 2008, 12:35:34

It's not that they don't agree with me, Alan, it's the fact that they don't agree with Pope John Paul's definitive ruling on the question of women's ordination that puts them outside communion with the Catholic faithful. It's no secret that Hollis of Portsmouth is a quasi-Protestant, and Conry of Brighton is not much better than a heretic. Their disobedience to the Magisterium of the Church is utterly shameful, and they should have been deposed years ago.

[Malcolm+]

Well, I can depend on the historical record, which shows bishops ordaining bishops from the time of Augustine of Canterbury forward.

Or I can depend on a bunch of empty assertions by a bishop in central Italy who was getting bad advice.

No panic here, Geoff.

We never asked for Rome's opinion (despite your little fable) so it is a matter indifferent.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

RIW, John Stott is a faithful Anglican who accepts the threefold ministry as it has been handed down through the ages.

As for his views on Cranmer, he no more speaks for Anglicanism than Hans Kung or Gutierrez speak for Rome.

Intention is signified in a number of ways, not least liturgical.

Over many long years before I retired I have seen the astonishing transformation of numerous RC churches and cathedrals from places of sacrificial offering, to places of frankly Reformed eucharist.

This follows the Reformation which took place at Vatican 2, effectively discrediting the cultic tradition of priesthood in favour of a ministerial model, which all but a few eccentrics, such as those at the Oratory, have adopted.

Vatican 2 is part of the Magisterium, but it seems you are selective in which aspects of the Magisterium - or indeed "infallibility" you think might suit your argument.

It may take decades, or even centuries, but I have little doubt that Rome will ordain women one day, and once again fall into line with the Church of England.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Can I say one thing...I never sink to the level of abuse ( harry potter indeed), but use arguments, rationally placed nad argued. AsSt Paul says, faith without love ( charity ) is in vain.

Evangelicals and the Gospel...they reject unequivocally your understnding of Anglicanism and you must be unfamiliar wit their writings. John Stoot t is their modern dyen and read his " Cross of Christ" where he discusses Cranmer and the Mass, and you will see I base my accusation obn solid fact.

The intention of the Anglican reformers was to return ordination to what they belived it was in the New Testament. They rejected the sacerdotal interpretation,asa corruption which is in reality on careful study the original and Biblical model.

Use of the term Bishop , priest and deacon does not mean that they are the same as what the Catholic Church upholds. In fact several protestant churches,use the terms as does the Mormon.

What individual Catholic priests think, say or do is a matter for discipline..but what counts in our case is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which re-emphasised ever more clearly the teaching of Trent on Holy order, and has so wonderfully staved of other attacks on the integrity of the Christian Revelation, with innovations like the ordination of women.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Malcolm, my son,

You may dispute the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction and scholarship as much as you please. You are in a small minority of refuseniks, relying on - what was the term you used? - a 'made up statistic' of the Anglican 'episcopal' genealogy to bolster your flagging case. There is now a hint of panic in your answers, Malcolm,
shown by the carelessness in your response ("Neither Alan nor eye...")!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Thank you, Geoffrey, for acknowledging that even your own bishops do not agree with you!

[Malcolm+]

Geoffrey dear boy.

Neither Alan nor eye dispute the fact that some bishop in central Italy found that our ordinations were invalid.

We merely dispute a) his jurisdiction and b) his scholarship.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Unfortunately for your argument, Alan, it is based on sheer fantasy. Been round the country, have we, polling all the Catholic priests?
The Catholic bishop you've mentioned: it wouldn't be Hollis of Portsmouth, would it? Or perhaps Conry of Brighton? Nuff said!
No, I am not a member of the Latin Mass Society. I prefer the Novus Ordo sung in Latin, but that is not the TLM as required by Pope Benedict. Either way, it is a eucharistic sacrifice; we have a valid priesthood, you see.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Unfortunately for your argument, Geoffrey, the Tridentine emphasis on sacrifice is no longer shared by the great majority of your own priests, some of whom have a more Zwinglian understanding of ministry and eucharist than the bulk of Anglican priests.

I have seen the eucharist celebrated by the local RC bishop in his cathedral church, in a manner entirely befitting a Methodist service. It would not be acceptable in our local parish church.

Perhaps you are a member of the Latin Mass Society? Is that why you are so strident about "sacrifice"?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Intention" means doing what the Church intends in ordaining a bishop or a priest,..."
- Dr Alan Marsh, 24 JUL 2008, 21:55:47

And what exactly does your Church intend, Alan? To resolve that the ordinand will offer the sacrifice of the Mass, the liturgical practice of the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years? I think not.
That is why the apostolic succession is absolutely crucial for a validly ordained priesthood, and vice versa.
When you remove its purpose, you remove its raison d'etre, and that means spiritual death.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

You have a remarkably weak grasp of what apostolic succession is, RIW, if you think it has anything to do with the throne of a particular nation.

And why single out the Evangelicals, who remain faithful to the Ordinal and to the gospel? The intention is to do what the Church has always done, since the time of the Apostles: to continue a succession of bishops, priests and deacons.

Perhaps you have been reading too much Harry Potter, if you think ordination is about getting the spells right and having the approved magic wand?

"Intention" means doing what the Church intends in ordaining a bishop or a priest, but it appears that neither you nor Mr Smith have had any theological training, so you might perhaps find it too difficult to comprehend.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Succession there is, but it is not of Catholic order".
- Robert Ian Williams, 24 JUL 2008, 18:26:50

Precisely! Which is the point that Malcolm and Dr Marsh obstinately refuse to acknowledge. Without valid ordinations from 1558 onwards, there can be no apostolic succession, only a facade of a sequence of bishops, none of whom believed in the Real Presence.

[Robert Ian Williams]

The best evidence for the invalidity of Anglican Orders, outside the infallible decision of the Magisterium is the witness of the evangelicals...

Men like John Stott, Philip jensen and hundreds of others don't even believe in a real presence let alone a Eucharistic sacrifice. They are faithful to the Reformation heritage that Doctor Marsh would paper over.

Cromwell succeeded Charles the first but he was not a King...George Washington succeeded George the third as Head of State, but he was no King.

Succession there is, but it is not of Catholic order.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Wow, Alan Marsh and Geoffrey Smith, what a wonderful attractive religion you two follow - wish I could be in it too!"
- Mark, 24 JUL 2008, 13:05:20

And so you can, Mark. Just log on to www.catholic.com
They'll give you all the details.

[Malcolm+]

But Geoffrey, Apostolicae Curae was very specific about the defects it claimed existed in the Anglican ordinal from 1550 until 1604. The argument against validity post 1604 was based, not on defects of order, but defects of minister in that (as the argument runs) there would have been no valid bishops, hence no valid ordinations.

But both post-Vatican II Roman ordinations and (based on what liturgical evidence we have) the vast majority of early church ordinations prior to about 600 a.d. also suffer from the same alleged defects.

Now, if one agrees with Apostolicae Curae, one must therefore, logically, agree that there have been no valid orders anywhere since sometime in the second century.

Or, one can take the eminently logical line of the Archbishops of England and agree that Leo XIII (or rather, his crackpot advisors) were incorrect in their analysis about what the essentials are for sacramental validity.

And BTW, the Orthodox position on Anglican orders is not quite what either you or Robert suggest. Their sacramental theology incorporates a broader view of legitimacy than mere mechanics. It would be more honest to suggest that they view Anglican (AND Roman) orders as hopelessly irregular, not because of alleged defects of matter, minister or intention, but because we are all separated from Orthodoxy.

Now, having raised a few facts, I'll step bakc and let Geoffrey's fantasy factory resume production.

[Fr Mark]

Wow, Alan Marsh and Geoffrey Smith, what a wonderful attractive religion you two follow - wish I could be in it too!

[Geoffrey Smith]

Dr Marsh, the new Roman ordinal has omitted nothing that is necessary in order to confer holy orders. Of course, what you understand by holy orders is clearly different from what the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches have always believed constitutes the sacrament. Once again, and in full agreement with Apostolicae Curae, the intention of the ordinator and the ordinand is crucial. Without the resolve to anoint a man for the specific purpose of offering the sacrifice of the Mass, the ritual is futile, no matter who "ordains" whom, where or when.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Only the "liberal Old Catholics of the Union of Utrecht accept Anglican orders and they now ordain women and bless gay unions..."
- Robert Ian Williams, 23 JUL 2008, 22:43:23

I didn't know that, Robert, many thanks for the info. Which confirms my worst fears, I suppose. Any sect that has dealings with another sect had better watch out - the transfer of error is all too easy.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Unlike your rather curious view of church history, Geoffrey, the records held by the Church of England are factual accounts of what actually took place.

There is no break in the succession of bishops from the beginning in the sixth century (earlier in Wales) to the present day.

Since the priests who were coming to England from abroad were representatives of a foreign power which had declared war on the English monarchy, which explicitly encouraged the assassination of the Queen, one need not be too surprised that the English state regarded them much as it regards al-Quaeda today.

Funnily enough, the new Roman ordinal omits the very things that Apostolicae Curae "infallibly" declared to be necessary in order to confer holy orders. The RC Church has finally come into line with our Ordinal -a pity it took 400 years.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Episcopal succession means nothing if the real intention of transmitting Holy orders was lost. In the 39 articles Holy Order is not even a sacrament , being partly a corrupt following of the apostles..!

Only the "liberal" Old Catholics of the Union of Utrecht accept Anglican orders and they now ordain women and bless gay unions...as does the Church of Sweden

The Romnan Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the lesser oriental Churches all reject Anglican Orders.

Doctor Marsden show me a seventeenth century or eighteenth century Anglican priest who claimed to offer as a propitiatary sacrifice for the living and the dead, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. SA propitiatary sacrifice , not some vague concept of a eucharistic sacrifice , mind you.

By the way, Geoffrey after the passing of the Act of Uniformity which restored a slightly modified but essentially Cranmer;s heretical prayer book and ordinal of 1552, the Apostolic succession was finally lost to the C of E in May 1559.

[Malcolm+]

Geoffrey's desperation is showing. He's practically gone back to the Nag's Head libel.

The four consecrators of Mathew Parker are well established, including bishops orginally ordained using both the 1550 ordinal and the Roman pontifical.

Pretend all you want, Geoffrey. Repeating your falsehoods will still not make them true.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Since the Anglican Church began in 1558, Alan, with the accession of Queen Elizabeth I, your episcopal genealogy has got to be a concoction. Without the INTENTION of ordaining a priest in order to offer the Mass, any such ritual is null and void. The Elizabethans knew this only too well. They were determined to stamp out the 'blasphemous fable' at all costs, even if it meant killing every priest who dared to set foot in the country. Hence the necessity to introduce a new-fangled ordinal, one which did not refer in any way to a sacrificing priesthood. This was the basis of Apostolicae Curae. Far from being 'too ill even to know what it said',
Pope Leo lived for another 7 years after declaring it. He knew what he was doing and he knew that it was right.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Geoffrey,

I have a list of all the consecrators of Anglican bishops from the early centuries of the Christian era. The succession was lost in Scotland (and restored) but never in England, Ireland or Wales.

Apostolicae Curae was never an historical document: it was simply Cardinal Gasquet's very political spin, aimed at the Church of England. The pope who signed it was probably too ill even to know what it said.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The clergy and bishops of the Church of England all NOW have an impeccable "pedigree",..."
- Dr Alan Marsh, 22 JUL 2008, 10:04:52

Implying, of course, that prior to the agreement with the OCs they did not have an impeccable pedigree, but
had no lineage whatsoever from the Apostles. Certainly, the OCs got the worst of the deal. With Anglican 'bishops' officiating at their ordination ritual, their hitherto valid orders would have become progressively polluted by Anglican heresy, and they must have lost a considerable degree of their former validity. As Robert Williams pointed out, the intention of the ordinators was and is the crucial factor. Since, in Anglican mythology, the Mass is 'a dangerous deceit', the intention of the Anglicans was not to ordain priests who would offer the Mass, but ministers who would do just about everything else, except, of course, hear confessions. That is the reason why Leo XIII issued Apostolicae Curae - Anglican orders became invalid because the Elizabethans were determined to make them so, regardless of the attitude of Rome. The apostolic succession was consequently lost and everything the Anglicans have done since then has been a vain attempt to recover from the calamity.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

RIW - "it is the rite employed not just the consecrator that is the crucial factor" - which is precisely the point about the new rite: it fails the test set out "infallibly" in Apostolicae Curae. Which is why it is wrong. Either that or all post Vatican 2 clergy do not have holy orders.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Doctor Marsh's piece on co-consecrators is interesting, but the Catholic reponse is that it is the rite employed not just the consecrator that is the crucial factor.

By way of analogy....

King Arthur using any sword does not make it Excalibur!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

So it's not a papal document, RIW. So it's only relatively infallible, being the opinion of some bishops in England? Since they (especially Cardinal Gasquet) were responsible for writing Apostolicae Curae I am not surprised that they agreed with it!

BTW in 1896 the two Archbishops were the authorities qualified to speak for the Church of England, by virtue of their office. They did not claim to be infallible, however. They preferred to rely on what proved to be an unanswerable argument.

All of this became otiose in the 1930s, however, when the Church of England signed an ecumenical agreement with the Old Catholic Churches, and bishops from each church began to share in each others' ordinations. The clergy and bishops of the Church of England all now have an impeccable "pedigree", in answer to Rome Cruft's quibbles.

[JCF]

That's *Doctor* Schori to you, Anthropax (Rt. Rev. and Presiding Bishop, to me: God bless her!)

"what is left behind will merely become Stonewall/Sparerib at prayer": I'm sure the saints in light have been called worse. ;-/

[Robert Ian Williams]

The response of the Catholic bishops is entitled:

A vindication of the Papal bull, Apostolicae Curae.

The call up number at the British library is w3/3366 dsc.

Hope that helps you Doctor Marsden

[Malcolm+]

A small quibble with Dr. Marsh. Not only would the liturgically illiterate arguments of Apostolicae Curae invalidate post Vatican II Roman ordinations, they would also (as pointed out in the response of the Archbishops of England) invalidate ordinations for most of the history of the early Church - with the net effect that, by the time of the great schism, there would have been no valid orders anywhere.

On another point, I recall reading once that the Orthodox take on the whole issue was that Anglican orders were "as valid" as Roman orders - although the statement demurred to express an opinion on the validity of Roman orders.

Is anyone aware of this alleged Orthodox statement in the aftermath of Apostolicae Curae and Saepius Officio?

[Robert Ian Williams]

Doctor Marsh..please read my earlier post carefully.

The Vatican acknowledged the letter, and the Englisn Catholic bishops responded, challenging the Anglican Archbishops to clarify their position on the eucharistic sacrifice, asking them if they believed it was propitiatary or not.

The Archbishops could of course not reply and indeed one of the Archbishops had died of a heart attack whilst visiting Hawarden in North Wales. his son would later become a Catholic.

The British library catalogue should help you the plain fact is that the document was the opinion of two bishops and not the official response of the Church of England.....there was non.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

RIW, perhaps you can provide details of the hitherto unknown CTS tract which you mention? Was it written by the Vatican? Is it "infallible" or just infallible-ish?

The arguments upon which Apostolicae Curae relies would mean that Roman ordinations since the introduction of the post-Vatican 2 ordination rite are themselves invalid. This point has been noted by some in your own church, who claim that all clergy ordained since then are in fact laymen, and cannot have received the sacrament of Holy Orders. Unless your parish priest has been ordained for more than forty years, it seems that you are attending a make-believe mass - according to Apostolicae Curae.

David Heron's remark simply shows that some Anglicans believe in the Marian dogmas. This does not mean that they have any basis in Christian doctrine.

The "Immaculate Conception" is at odds with orthodox belief about the Person and Nature of Jesus Christ. The "Assumption" is a charming story, but like many of the apocryphal stories from the sub-apostolic period, it can only be just that - a charming story, and not a dogmatic definition required of Christians.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I have a suspicion that what is left behind will merely become Stonewall/Sparerrib at prayer".
- Geoff Miller, 20 JUL 2008, 10:24:40

Not exactly Stonewall at prayer, Geoff. More like Outrage - who don't have a prayer.

[Janet]

Does the Times offer to receive visitors at its Canterbury pad still hold good? And if so, how do we find it?

(rg writes: yes it does, txt me on 07880 505806)

[uncle-fred]

I look forward to the social structure of the Church of England crashing and disappearing in a cloud of dust and ashes.
There has been creeping acceptance of secularity into the church's thinking, "theology", and even (with its drums and guitars) within the actual buildings themselves.
There is now no distinction between biblical truths and tolerance of biblical sin. It now has no function within the Kingdom.
Enough.
Wipe it out!

[Steven]

Probably the best introduction to, and a rather detailed description of, the Orthodox Church in English was written by an Englishman, after an Anglican upbringing and a double first in classics from Oxford, a lecturer there who became an Orthodox priest. _The Orthodox Church_ by Timothy Ware is, I think, still in print in soft-cover from Penguin. Ware is now Bishop Kallistos (his name changing on becoming a monastic) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The story of his conversion is presently posted on the web, as well written as his book. He strikes me as the sort of person with whom Ms. Gledhill might get along very well.

[Kate]

"I have a suspicion that what is left behind will merely become Stonewall/Sparerib at prayer."
(Geoff Miller)

What an arrogant and uninformed prediction from one who would claim to be an Uberchristian.

Au contraire Mr Miller. I know for a fact that "what is left behind" will be those ordinary Anglicans in the pews who honour the tradition and history of the Church; who are not frustrated Romans; who have no truck with immutable fundamentalism; who have no interest in taking instruction from an African megalomaniac; and who will continue to give love and communion to all who seek it. These, in Ireland anyway, despite best divisive efforts of 'ANON' and Co. are the majority.

Ruth: thank you for such wonderful in-depth, coverage of these terrible and distressing traumas. Not only are you a dedicated professional but, personify in your Being all I hold dear in my Church - compassion, humanity and (that dreaded word!) 'inclusivity'.

I am deeply sorry you have suffered sneering rudeness and denigration from some of the self-righteous, self-appointed 'authorities' on Anglicanism. In the worst of times, I have known more courtesy and thoughtful debate from our home-grown terrorists - Catholic and Protestant.

Arthur is a lucky boy to have such a mother. Pity the offspring of the dead-alive, incarcerated in an exclusive, anti-intellectual, and prescriptive world of 2,000 year old immutable texts.

Warmest regards
Kate

[Fr David Heron]

Many Anglicans accept the Marian Dogmas, so Dr Marsh is wrong on both counts. But he's entitled to his opinion. No doubt his co-religionists will tell us they're not in the Bible.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Doctor Marsden ....the English Catholic bishops did respond to Saepius Officio and the Evangelical bishops of the Church of England sserted that the document was the personal opinion of the authors and NOT an official Church of England response.

The Cof E Bishop of Sodor and Man , wrote...the response was their Graces'own private convictiona nd not binding upon English Churchmen..English Churchman 1897.

CTS published the Catholic bishops response on behalf of the Holy See and you can view a copy o it at the Britisjh library.