Damian Thompson: Lambeth Palace ‘implacably opposed’ to Pope’s Anglican plans

Posted by Kendall Harmon

This from a good source in Rome: apparently both Lambeth Palace and elements in the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity were “implacably opposed” to Pope Benedict XVI’s dramatic new arrangements for Anglicans. The source also reports speculation that Archbishop Rowan Williams put pressure on Vatican ecumenists to stop the Apostolic Constitution being issued.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalArchbishop of Canterbury Anglican ProvincesChurch of England (CoE)* Religion News & CommentaryOther ChurchesRoman CatholicPope Benedict XVI

Posted October 21, 2009 at 8:26 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. Br. Michael wrote:

Well maybe the ABC should take an active part in up holding orthodox Anglicanism and learn to talk properly.  The ABC has done more to destroy the AC than Rome ever has.

October 21, 8:50 am | [comment link]
2. AnglicanFirst wrote:

“This from a good source in Rome: apparently both Lambeth Palace and elements in the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity were “implacably opposed” to Pope Benedict XVI’s dramatic new arrangements for Anglicans.”

Unfortunately, the Anglican Communion has been ‘left adrift’ by the Archbishop of Canturbury and his supporting retinue at Lambeth Palace.

What the Global South and now Pope Benedict are attempting to do is to provide an episcopal home for those Anglicans who cannot/will not abide by the secularism of ‘supposed Anglican leadership’ in the United States, Canada and Great Britain.

The ‘this seems good for the times’ secularism of the ‘supposed Anglican leadership’ is immiscible, non-congruent, incompatible and ‘reeking of heresy’ in the minds of most traditional/orthodox Anglicans.

October 21, 8:51 am | [comment link]
3. Br. Michael wrote:

And Rome is actually proposing to do something rather than endless discussion and process.  The ABC has only himself to blame for this.

October 21, 8:52 am | [comment link]
4. Katherine wrote:

If Dr. Williams is opposed to this move by the Vatican, he could easily have forestalled it by taking firm action against the American innovations.  In doing so he would have placed himself in opposition to elements in the CofE and his own inclinations, and he didn’t have the dedication or the nerve, apparently.  He tried to keep the wheels from coming off, and he failed.  Putting the wheels back on will require a return to Anglican faith and order as they have traditionally been understood.

October 21, 9:41 am | [comment link]
5. Fr. J. wrote:

If the ABC is opposed to this, he in effect is saying that no provision whatsoever should be given to traditional Anglicans.  If he is a Father figure, this is like a child abuser raging against child protective services.

October 21, 10:33 am | [comment link]
6. Br_er Rabbit wrote:

Elves, ok back on the right thread on my BB. I’m ok in column view but normal view comments go off the right margin. The problem may be the string of “equal” signs in #2.

October 21, 10:42 am | [comment link]
7. Phil wrote:

Amen to these comments.  It’s Rowan’s own fault.

October 21, 10:50 am | [comment link]
8. eaten_by_chipmunks wrote:

Since when did prayerful patience and redemptive hope become vices such that +Rowan Williams could be characterized as he is in the above comments?  Since when was haste the key to prudence and justice, in an ecclesial context or otherwise?  My, are we an eager and shortsighted bunch!

October 21, 11:57 am | [comment link]
9. Passing By wrote:

If one had LED in the first place, one would have no need to SABOTAGE. 

Another sad attempt for the needs of the few to outweigh the needs of many, and an opportunistic attempt by Williams to save his own face. 


October 21, 11:58 am | [comment link]
10. Phil wrote:

#8, haste?  Haste?

Good grief.  Are you Rip Van Winkle?  Did you fall asleep in Minneapolis with the Gene Robinson headlines draped over your face and just wake up?  Look at a calendar.

October 21, 12:14 pm | [comment link]
11. eaten_by_chipmunks wrote:

#10 How long did God ask the Israelites to live and die as nameless slaves before he finally sent Moses?  How long did the exiled Jews have to wait before Jesus was finally born, who even then failed (in their eyes) to free them from Roman tyranny?  Inactivity is only inactivity if measured against a fairly narrowly bracketed timescale and its correlative available goals. Methinks a fair too many of us have become too accustomed to microwaves and fast food.  Love, if we are to take 1 Cor 13 as the first of many examples, would seem to suggest that we’ve much more to bear and for a far longer period if we are to pursue it truly. And +Williams seems to have a sense of this far better than most (even the CDF, it would appear).

October 21, 12:44 pm | [comment link]
12. Phil wrote:

#11, fair enough, but how long did the disciples have to wait for the risen Lord to appear?  How long did Mary have to wait when she asked Jesus to help at Cana?  How long did Lazarus have to wait to be resurrected?  How long did God have Joseph and Mary wait in Israel as Herod’s killers roamed the land?

October 21, 12:47 pm | [comment link]
13. nwlayman wrote:

This is a good development.  Whatever catches the “Ecumenical officers” flat footed and does an end run around them is always to be encouraged.  The loud “HUH???” is music to anyone’s ears.  They realize their jobs are at stake and depend on the ones on the other side of things to be separate.  They need brooms, leaf blowers or lawn mowers to stay busy.

October 21, 12:53 pm | [comment link]
14. palagious wrote:

“Unity by attrition”.  Yesterday, the overwhelming response to this was no big deal, marginal impact what a difference a day makes.

October 21, 1:56 pm | [comment link]
15. eaten_by_chipmunks wrote:

#12 Certainly there are moments in biblical history where “sooner” takes occasional priority over “later”.  However, I would argue that such is the exception and not the norm.  I read far more along the lines of “When, oh Lord?” and “How long, Oh, Lord?” than I do the reverse. +Williams’ timetable is one which seems decidedly (and rightly) eschatological in nature, one which makes room for him to forgive up to seventy times seven before being willing to give up hope for restorative redemption.  Patience, the one thing most every faction in the Anglican Communion seems sorely to lack, is the name of the game here.  I’m eternally grateful the Archbishop of Canterbury realizes it.

October 21, 2:07 pm | [comment link]
16. Ad Orientem wrote:

Re # 6
Br_er Rabbit,
I have seen that in some other threads as well.  The arrival of all those equal signs does unpleasant things to the html and the page view is completely thrown off.  It makes it very hard to read comments.

October 21, 2:41 pm | [comment link]
17. Sick & Tired of Nuance wrote:

I already posted this on the “poaching” thread, but I thought it bore repeating here:

“It remains to be seen what use will be made of this provision, since it is now up to those who have made requests to the Holy See to respond to the Apostolic Constitution;  but, in the light of recent discussions with senior officials in the Vatican, I can say that this new possibility is in no sense at all intended to undermine existing relations between our two communions or to be an act of proselytism or aggression.  It is described as simply a response to specific enquiries from certain Anglican groups and individuals wishing to find their future within the Roman Catholic Church.”
(Emphasis added)

ABC Williams

October 21, 6:08 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): John Allen (NC Reporter): Vatican reveals plan to welcome disaffected Anglicans

Previous entry (below): Timothy Bradshaw: Pope’s move will harm dialogue and weaken Church of England

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)