www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Archbishop of Canterbury's statement in Rome

Archbishop of Canterbury tells Pope: no turning back on women priests.


The rest can be found

Here [timesonline.co.uk]

And I guess he doesn't want to appease the Orthodox either...

I think that Pope Benedict's Apostolic Constitution facilitating the conversion of Anglican to Catholicism is true ecumenism. While dialogue with those who support women's ordination is pointless.

The interesting point is that Dr. Williams seems to have missed a major point about women's ordination. Pope John Paul II of blessed memory settled the question for the Catholic Church in 1994 with a very authoritative document that Catholics are supposed to hold as part of the Faith. So for him to make a statement like the one reported should also make it clear to all involved that there is not and never will be any communion in matters of the Faith and there will never be any sacramental sharing of any kind. I wonder if this registered in his mind while he was preparing his remarks or has done so since.

BOB

The Archbishop is clearly out of touch with what being a Catholic Christian is.

I thank God I crossed the Tiber (via Constantinople). Lets pray for the Anglican Church and those who defend Apostolic Practice with in and that they will take the Pope up on his offer.

Actually I am afraid that judging by some of the Archbishop's actions and statements he is out of touch with what being a Christian is, never mind a Catholic or Orthodox.

Deacon Borislav,

I remind you, again, that the appropriate titles of clergy - including those of non-Apostolic Churches - are used in posting at this forum. You may properly refer to the Archbishop of Canterbury as such or as Dr Williams. You may not apply quotation marks to his title to denigrate him or his office. He holds that office in the church to which he belongs, whether you consider it appropriate or not - neither the Orthodox nor Catholic Churches hold an exclusive right to the use of hierarchical titles.

Many years,

Neil

"Dr. Williams" is a perfectly acceptable form of address, widely used within Anglican circles. Chill. Or I will take to calling the Archbishop of Canterbury "His Lordship".

I've never heard an Archbishop of Canterbury address as Dr Williams directly, only referred to as Dr Williams in the media. Archbishops like Dukes are formally addressed as Your Grace in England.

This Archbishop seems to be making it very clear where his Church is heading. For once someone in that camp is making it clear just what they stand for. This is clarification of their position is very helpful in any further dialogue between them and any number of other Churches,

What strikes me as odd is the report that the Archbishop will preside at Vespers. Sounds like an RC Vespers because 1. called "Vespers" (not "Evensong") and 2 in a church called "the Oratory of St Francis Xavier" (also pretty "Roman" {as the Anglicans would say}). I know Orthodox Hierarchs who have "presided", but strikes me as odd that an Anglican cleric would (I know it's not a sacramental service, but still....). Could a United Church or Baptist cleric "preside"?

The other thing I found REALLY interesting are the comments! Kinda contextualizes our conversations.

Presiding is no big deal in current Latin practice. The confusion can come in when one refers to the pirest at the Liturgy as the "presider" rather than the "priest celebrant" or "priest." I've presided at para-liturgical services in my parish over many years, including Stations of the Cross and Eucharistic Services, so being a presider at any meeting of the Christian community other than the Liturgy is no big deal.

There's a bit of the struggle within the Catholic Church showing here. There are those who think we should recognize all the Anglicans without much more ado, thus opening the door to all the things they are doing--women's ordination, et al. There are those who still insist on Pope Leo's determination of Anglican Orders and who oppose the former approach. Giving Archbishop Williams the role of presider can be seen as advancing the one group's idea and also as being of little import to the other. In any event, it's a courtesy in this ecumenical age.

BOB

Yes, I see what you mean.

Thirty years ago, I would have been much more comfortable (if not enthusiastic) for an Anglican bishop to "preside" (in the old-fashioned sense) at a non-sacramental Divine Service.

Given recent events in the Anglican Communion, I am personally less comfortable in my own mind to include them in the "family" of "Apostolic" or (as they would say "catholic") churches. Now I would tend to group them in with such as the United Church (who have no problem with abortion or same-gender unions and ordinations {indeed they are quite enthusiastic about it}) and other so called "main-line" Protestant ecclesial communities of that ilk.

So it would strike me as odd to see a United Church minister or even the Moderator himself (or herself) presiding at a Latin Church Vespers.

Having said that, I'm not a member of the Latin Church, so in a sense, it's their affair (and non of my business - so far as it goes).

It is neither discourteous nor un-heard of to refer to either a Catholic Bishop or an Anglican Bishop as "Dr. Broderick" or whatever his name may be. (Dr. Broderick was titular Bishop of Juniopolis and former auxiliary of Havana, in case anyone is wondering).

Fr. Serge

Herbigny:

I guess it's because of the liturgical similarity. A minister from a less liturgical tradition would probably not want to preside anyway. But anyone can put on an alb, cincture, and cope for Vespers. The only difference is having a stole underneath, so it's no big deal.

BOB

Who thinks we should recognize the Anglicans' ordination of women? That is directly contrary to Catholic doctrine.

And for those who "still" consider Pope Leo's bull authoritative and binding - that would be the entire Church, including the Pope himself, who within the last couple of decades emphatically reiterated that the bull is, of course, binding.

The fact that some people can't take such plain statements at face value continues to shock and baffle me.

Alexis