Schisms of schisms of schisms. I’d not want to be subsumed by Rome, either, but sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t be better for all of us if there were only Rome and the other four ancient Patriarchates, period.

It would certainly be better if there had been no divisions!
But that is only to say that there would be no schism if everyone would just agree with me.

This is simply an indictment on the bishop’s poor ecclesiology.

The response of American Anglican groups to the Apostolic Constitution seems almost reflexively negative.  I don’t know whether that reflects deep theological disagreement or simple anti-Roman sentiment.  English Anglo-Catholics, at least traditional ones, have been either mildly welcoming or delighted.  I see the initiative as the answer to decades of prayer and, very likely, the only sustainable future for Catholic-minded Anglicans.

There seems to be something both unrealistic and arrogant in swatting away an historic and generous overture from the Pope (after all, Patriarch of the West and leader of the world’s largest church) with almost no time for deep thought—especially when the alternative is the luke-warm alphabet soup of the Continuum or the highly experimental and unstable new Anglican coalition.

The Holy Father has been more imaginative and welcoming than anyone could have expected or predicted.  American Anglicans have been either blankly uninterested or churlish.  I don’t suppose the nasty flea-bites bother BXVI much, but they don’t reflect terribly well on the Anglican side.

It is striking to me how a pattern is emerging in the Anglican protests against the pope’s offer. 

When RW appeals to Anglo-Catholics to stay, his bleakness reminds them of why they are considering leaving…

When strong Evangelicals protest the pope’s offer by asserting a triumphal evangelicalism, they remind Anglo-Catholics of why they are considering leaving…

When strong liberals protest the pope’s offer by claiming it is an invitation to bigots and haters, they remind Anglo-Catholics of why they are considering leaving.

“This is not the way to foster good ecumenical dialogue”

Um…this was not an effort to foster ecumenical dialogue…

Far from “offensive” the Pope’s overture to Anglicans is a wonderfully gracious act.  If there were an Anglo-Catholic parish in my area I would be a member and would lean toward applying for membership in the Diocese of Ft. Worth.  However, should the ACNA prove unsustainable, I would hope that the parish (if not the entire diocese) would accept the Pope’s offer.

The Vatican has a far more strategic outlook and patience than the current bunch in running the AC.  We should revisit the impact of this offer in 5-10 years to see how successful it was.  Most of these guys can’t see beyond next years budget or Convention.  The Vatican is thinking years into the future,

Oh my. Apparently the actions of the good bishop and his allies in the ACC which led to the Vatican response were nothing but sweetness and light.

Dan,

Bishop Harvey is surely part of the Anglican Network in Canada (and thus presumably part of ACNA). That’s what makes the comment so odd. That he and Archbishop Hiltz might actually be on the same page about something.

It is a gracious offer, and really helpful for those who wish to become ‘Roman Catholic’ and if after careful consideration of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the claims to papal infallibility, bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary, her virgin birth and sinlessness as well as the concepts of post mortem perfection in purgatory, then indeed the Apostolic Constitution helps to smooth the way.

However one should be in no doubt that all aspects of the Anglican church’s theology and true patrimony will be left behind; one may keep some bowdlerised liturgy and hymnody to the extent that it conforms absolutely with the Roman Catholic Church’s view, but that will be something different.

So it should not be seen as a threat or offensive, but as a way of becoming Roman Catholic in a way that eases the process.

However in timing and the way it has been been presented running roughshod over the ABC it is not a friendly act towards Anglicans, and probably was never intended to be so.  It is however indicative of Rome’s judgment on the ABC and the CofE who, apart from TAC, it was specifically addressed to.

I’m beginning to notice that many who have claimed to be anglo catholic really aren’t…. and this might account for the resentment to the papal invitation.
rtd priest

It is interesting to see the reactions, still being announced fully 30 days later, to the Vatican’s announcement it was responding to repeated requests over a period of years by some groups of Anglicans who are deeply concerned by the state of the Canterbury Communion.  There seems to be a dichotomy between those who regard ecumenical dialogue as an exercise intended to keep parties talking while never taking any steps to approach one another, and those who expect from such dialogue that it will in fact lead to a new and closer state of the relationship.

This is not the way to foster good ecumenical dialogue

Oh?  This is rich coming from a revisionist!

11. Pageantmaster.

Forgive me but I find your analysis of the pope’s motives to be a bit of spin.  The pope could not have done anything positive in the eyes of Anglicans who despise the idea of communion with Rome.

He was clearly responding to a formal request publicly announced by the TAC.  I for one believe him that many other inquiries from various Anglican corners were also made informally.

If he had responded in the negative, the cries of Roman inflexibility would have been deafening.  If he had extended the requested provision only to TAC and no other Anglicans, it would have also been decried loudly by many as another Roman injustice.

As for the timing, I can not imagine a time in the past two years or in the next several years that would not have been judged as too sensitive or as directed at the ABC for this or that thing.  The AC has been a festering wound since 2003 and will likely be so for the foreseeable future—and that is according to the ABC himself, “chaotic and uncertain.”  In other words, there has not been and will not be a time when the pope’s offer would not be interpreted as a judgment on RW or Anglicanism or what have you.

I think it is quite fair to say that the pope’s involvement here is a big headache and has and will require great efforts and institutional strain on the Catholic side of the equation.  I believe it is also fair to say that if not for the formal request, the offer never would have been considered.  It wasn’t his idea.

Bishop Harvey is surely part of the Anglican Network in Canada (and thus presumably part of ACNA). That’s what makes the comment so odd. That he and Archbishop Hiltz might actually be on the same page about something.

Yes, Anglican liberals and Anglican evangelicals, for different reasons, share something in common with my Protestant grandparents, “Anywhere but Rome.”

#15 and #16 Oh believe me I do believe in the unity of Christians, just not in the hegemony of Rome and the submission of the Anglican Communion to the Pope.

If you want to understand how unwelcome it is to many Anglicans, then consider how “friendly” it would be for the Archbishop of Canterbury to be invited to St Peter’s and then to set out his plans for Italian Roman Catholics to be encouraged to move, lock stock and barrel to union with the Church of England, including keeping their priests, mass and liturgy.

It is not anti-catholicism, it is just bad mannners from Levada and co.    Now can you understand?

Yes, Bishop Harvey IS part of the ACNA.  I liked his comment on being invited to the party, “but on equal terms.”  Will that ever happen?  No, it won’t.

Now can you understand?

Frankly, no. Again, this was a PETITION from TAC. They had been waiting at least two years for a formal response, and had been assured publicly that the Vatican was going to respond, and (in Roman time) soon, to their request.  Fr. J was right in saying that these past few years, and the forseeable future do not seem to provide a “breather” in which it would be more appropriate for Rome to respond. How long should those folks have to wait?

If this was simply a pre-emptive move on the part of the Vatican - looking for a good time to strike while the Anglicans were in confusion and to take as many as would come, that would be one thing. But…there is nothing pre-emptive about this. It is a RESPONSE to a request of a church that claims 400,000 members, a response that has been over two years in the making. Even half that number is more than some of the smaller Eastern Churches in union with Rome. What kind of pastoral response would it be to tell them, “No, we can’t let you in until the Anglican Communion has its house in order.”  I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t seem to be happening in the forseeable future. So, no, I don’t think it is bad manners, and frankly the folks that seem to think so are not the ones that would ever consider taking the Pope up on his offer.  They, for the most part, also are the ones who have made it difficult if not impossible in good conscience for those that are Anglo-Catholic in the Anglican communion to remain in the communion.

“Frankly, no. Again, this was a PETITION from TAC”
Well, the TAC petition and response from the Vatican has very little impact on the Anglican Communion.  TAC have been doing their own thing for at least 20 years and they have very little presence in the UK.  However the pastoral response was widened considerably beyond that to specifically include the Church of England, indeed one might say to target the Church of England.  And yes, it has affected the prospects of Anglo-Catholics here achieving any sort of recognition of their needs within the CofE.  Now whether that is for good or for bad remains to be seen, but there have been some pretty negative reactions.    It is, like the FCA moving into the UK, an indictment of the failure of Rowan Williams’ leadership.  And as an Anglican I feel absolutely no need to join the Church of Rome any more than I would wish to join the Mormons or the Moonies.  I am very happy with the theology of the Anglican Church and think there is a lot other churches could learn from it.  However the move of Rome at this time is not helping our witness within our church, quite the opposite.    Perhaps you do not care, such is your view of our church, but we do, very much, and having seen Rome as friends, we now know they are nothing of the sort.

I think it is fair to say that the Vatican’s timing has been, shall we say from the point of view of conservatives in the CofE, of whatever color, unhelpful.

I cannot “understand” either. IF all that keeps an Anglican from Rome or a Roman from Anglicanism is procedural or ecclesial legalities, then by all means do away with them. Why would Anglicans want half-hearted Anglicans to stay simply because it is too difficult to leave? And vice versa?

I have no theological affinity with Rome. I’m a Calvinist. But my what a good and generous offer this is from a good and wise pope.

I’m frankly surprised and embarrassed at all the whining from Anglican leaders…especially orthodox Anglican leaders. Get a grip

frankly the folks that seem to think so are not the ones that would ever consider taking the Pope up on his offer.  They, for the most part, also are the ones who have made it difficult if not impossible in good conscience for those that are Anglo-Catholic in the Anglican communion to remain in the communion.

Absolutely correct! The posturing by ACNA not only shows gross insensitivity but ugly church politics. I am thrilled for Bp. +Moyer and disgusted by the anti catholic rhetoric that even resonates in our so called “Anglo-Catholic” diocese of San Joaquin.
Intercessor

Whatever.

If this report is accurate, I am very disappointed in Bishop Harvey’s response.  I have recently withdrawn from my parish church, which is in a heretical Canadian diocese, and this attitude does not encourage me to seek an ecclesiastical home in the ACNA.

RE: “Yes, Anglican liberals and Anglican evangelicals, for different reasons, share something in common with my Protestant grandparents, “Anywhere but Rome.”

Yes—and Geneva.  And Constantinople. 

Because you know . . . we’ve chosen Canterbury. 

Once again—more “we’re victims because you don’t agree with our theology” rhetoric from Fr. J.

Pageantmaster:

RE: “And yes, it has affected the prospects of Anglo-Catholics here achieving any sort of recognition of their needs within the CofE.”

From my perspective it gives much strength to the AngloCatholic voice in the COE to have their needs recognized.  For now they have a place to go if their needs are *not* recognized.  Unless, of course, it’s a foregone conclusion that they’re not going to be helped.

RE: “However the move of Rome at this time is not helping our witness within our church, quite the opposite.  . . . I think it is fair to say that the Vatican’s timing has been, shall we say from the point of view of conservatives in the CofE, of whatever color, unhelpful.”

So what are you saying?  That Rome should not provide a way for AngloCatholics to enter Rome comfortably until Rowan Williams is gone from office?  Then, of course, Rome would need to wait until after the new guy “gets a chance”—so that’s another decade.  Is that what you really want?  For Rome to delay its help by some 20 years just because it doesn’t help conservatives?  Some of whose conservatives, I might add, joyfully participated in the Synod at offering no help for AngloCatholics and their needs.