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

Anyway, I for one am glad that Dr. Williams spoke out so forcefully in favor of women's ordination - since it makes it totally clear, to me at least, that the only way we should be dealing with these people is to set out on a mission of converting as many of them as we possibly can to the Catholic and Orthodox Faith, as the Church has maintained ever since the Church of England came into being.

I think the Anglican Provision does just that.

Really, it makes total sense for Dr. Williams to forcefully defend women's ordination now. That Communion is no longer fooling anyone with half a brain that they're an Apostolic Christian community, so the only people he has to appease are those who favor ordination of women in the first place. Cut your losses and shore up those whom you still have. Wise policy to me.

I love the last little bit about Cardinal Kasper's staff being "dismayed" at Anglicanorum Coetibus. I bet! LOL. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall.

Alexis

Good post. I agree with that 100%

Very well put Alexis. We now know where we stand and they stand.

And me. It's just too bad we're separated by age and distance. I'm sure you'd have the same gray hair and high blood pressure I've had over the years hearing some priests actually speak against Pope Leo's Bull from the pulpit. (One time I got so far out of joint that the pastor of our parish pulled me aside and actually begged me not to write to Rome after an assistant's sermon on the subject. He said that the man had attended a seminary where the whole curriculum was elective and he came to the parish with little theology and little idea of liturgical celebration. But the poor man is now dead--the assistant; kidney failure--and his faux pas are over, too.)

Maybe we ought to follow the lead of the Moscow Patriarchate. When the first women were ordained in the Episcopal Church in the United States--1974 and officially after 1976--the MP politely told the Anglicans that with that sort of development any future talks about any sort of unity in faith and sacraments was no longer possible. And, if I remember correctly, they also said that future ecumenical talks would not have unity as a final goal. It's one thing to have serious theological dialogue when one has the goal of eventual communion, but it's quite another when it becomes increasingly clear that this is no longer possible under any circumstances.

In Christ,
BOB

Those who want priestesses can have them.

Those who want the Church of Christ, likewise, can have it.

Some of us left those ships on the bottom of the ocean while the captains were yelling, "Bail faster."

Been there. Done that.

I'd rather be in a Church that saves me than be a part of a church I have to save. That is why I am Orthodox.

I recommend a careful re-reading of my post to Deacon Borislav, which will show that I indicated to him that 'Dr Williams' was a perfectly acceptable style by which to address the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Stuart,

I'm neither awed nor cowed by your arrogance, pomposity, or pedantry - don't you presume to tell me to 'chill'. If you find my style of moderation to be contrary to your perception of how dialogue should occur, then I recommend that you not dialogue with me.

Neil

Talk of such things, I remember a classmate - from Germany, I think - in graduate school who invariably referred to the Latin Archbishop of Toronto as "My Lord Toronto".

In Ireland a simple bishop is often addressed as "Your Lordship" - inaccurately, since in Ireland the bishops are not members of a non-existent "House of Lords".

The Archbishop of Canterbury, however, is indeed a member of the English House of Lords, and may properly be addressed as "My Lord Archbishop". Knowing Dr. Williams, he is unlikely to encourage such a form of address.

None of which is of any vital importance.

Fr. Serge

I am a little hot headed, and many of you know this very well.

I tend to over react to such things. The statement by Dr. Williams was just a bit shocking. He wants all of us to "reconsider" our view of female bishops. Next he will ask that we soften our position on homosexual clergy. Maybe we should all also re-examine our view of the scriptures, after all according to Dr. Williams much of the Nativity story is just a fairytale. Maybe we should also add Rev. Martin Lurther King to the calendar of our saints? Finally the good archbishop may ask us to rethink our position on letting practicing Muslims hold clerical positions in the Church of Christ. After all this has also been allowed by the Anglican communion.


Anyway, please pray for me because this type of stuff drives me absolutely crazy.

No doubt he will suggest all of those things. After all that is where he is coming from. The Pope will of course reject them. Sleep well tonight. The Archbishop will of course have a lovely stay in Rome and will hopefully have safe trip home.

Though a disaster as a prelate, Dr. Williams is a powerful and perceptive theologian (which ought to prove, once and for all, that academic qualifications and pastoral qualifications are two different things). Your characterization of his position on the Nativity of Christ is, at its very best, a gross distortion and caricature.

Actually the use of the word Church is incorrect, it should be anglican communion. They are not a Church.
Stephnos I

Father Stephanos:

With all due respect, we need to remember the rules of charity apply to organizations as well as to individuals holding offices within said organizations. While Catholics and Orthodox may disagree over whether the Anglicans form a Church or merely a Communion or an ecclesial community, we refer to them as they refer to them out of respect for their humanity and their consciences. Whether we believe they are wrong, we can always refer to them and speak to them in Christian charity.

I try to remember that all charity arises from and is the Person of Christ. And since we are all called to be plunged into Him by Baptism, we ought to remember that we arise from the font having Him and the charity arising from Him now a part of the new man we have become.

BOB

In Lutheran liturgical practice a stole is worn at Matins and Vespers ONLY when there is to be a Sermon, and it is worn only by the one preaching.

Within the Society of the Holy Trinity [societyholytrinity.org]the usual practice is to vest in cassock, surplice, and tippet for the Offices; a stole instead of tippet if preaching, a cope if the Office is being celebrated with greater solemnity.

I think not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573213/Archbishop-says-nativity-a-legend.html

"The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a 'legend'.

Dr Rowan Williams has claimed there was little evidence that the Magi even existed and there was certainly nothing to prove there were three of them or that they were kings.

He said the only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague.

Dr Williams said: "Matthew's gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that's all we're really told. It works quite well as legend."

The Archbishop went on to dispel other details of the Christmas story, adding that there were probably no asses or oxen in the stable.

He argued that Christmas cards which showed the Virgin Mary cradling the baby Jesus, flanked by shepherds and wise men, were misleading. As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was "very unlikely".

I suggest you do your research before accusing anyone of a "gross distortion".

Oh and as of "gross distortion" of British law... I seem to recall the good archbishop welcoming Sharia law in England...

Like Deacon Borislav, I remember well the Archbishop's dismissal of much related to the Nativity as it is depicted in the Gospels. As one with a special devotion to Sainted Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar (and the lesser known visitors referred to in other traditions - as many as 12 Magi in some), it stuck with me at the time particularly because he brought into question the reality of the Magi.

Many years,

Neil