Monday, January 27, 2014

Why doesn't ++George tell us what he really thinks?

I think the reason why people don't like ++George Carey is that he prevaricates and pussyfoots around with what he really thinks. A typical example is here, on ecumenical relationships with Rome.

If only he could be frank with us and tell us what he really thinks. It is just so like his successor to leave us confused by the ambiguity of his descriptions of states of affairs. If he thinks the money invested in ecumenical relationships is like paying a huge transfer fee for a striker who never scores, he should say so. And, incidentally, wouldn't it be a good idea for Archbishops of Canterbury to find brilliant analogies like that which connect with the not-so-academic, non-chattering classes of English people?

:)

PS I continue to work on John's Gospel and am focused at the moment on a post which responds to John's comment to my post on Saturday.

10 comments:

carl jacobs said...

He is right, of course. True ecumenical relationships are only possible when there is broad agreement on essentials. That agreement is decidedly lacking between Protestant & Catholic. These efforts do nothing but legitimize RC dogmas as within allowable bounds. For Rome, they exist simply to facilitate bringing Protestants back under the authority of Rome.

If Rome wants ecumenical relationships, there should be four non-negotiable pre-conditions. Rome must:

1. Repudiate Trent and all its works and all its ways.

2. Repudiate Sacred Tradition.

3. Repudiate the Marian dogmas.

4. Repudiate Papal and Magisterial infallibility.

Without those four pre-conditions being met, there is literally nothing to discuss.

carl

Father Ron Smith said...

Unfortunately, for Bishop George Carey, his own record of failure to curb the homophobia of what have now become the GAFCON Provinces of the A.C., will forever brand him as an inadequate ABC. Therefore, ipso facto, his advice on relationships in the wider Church may never be taken seriously again.

Contrary to his comments on the ARCIC arrangements, it s a serious attempt in dialogue to bring our two parts of the One, Catholic and Apostolic Church nearer to each other. Unity has to begin somewhere. Further schism gets us, and the world, waiting for redemption, nowhere.

I. for one, appreciate other ABCs - including Archbishop Justin - for their close relationships with the Roman Pontiff. Friendship is a good start, whatever its deniers may claim.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
Are you missing the main point of what ++George is arguing? That despite lots of money, time, effort going into the formal ARCIC relationship, nothing has changed. In real (i.e. liturgical, recognition of orders) terms, absolutely nothing has changed!

I do not see ++George arguing against friendship between our two churches (which I am all for and do my own bit to promote etc). But the measure of unity between us re liturgy and orders has not altered one iota because of ARCIC. Is that satisfactory? Is that worth the considerable sums of money invested?

Father Ron Smith said...

In answer to your question, Peter: "Is it worth the money"? I can only contrast what one can detect about the amount of money spent on the international meetings of those Provinces of the Church in paying for delegates from all over the world to get to GAFCON meetings, designed to destabilise the rest of the Anglican Communion. I think that would add us to millions.

This activity does absolutely nothing for Church unity.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
You must know the old saying that two wrongs do not make a right!

Or perhaps it is just a question of focusing on the question! The question here is not about the spending of money on GAFCON etc but on ARCIC.

Has ARCIC made a measurable difference to Anglican - Roman Catholic relationships?

Anonymous said...

Gee talking about money how about the nigh on $30 million TEC has spent suing for buildings it cannot fill.

I mean if the argument is about spending alot of money for no good purpose...

Dave

Shawn Herles said...

ARCIC is a waste of time and money. We can have good and positive relationships with Rome without it. The doctrinal hurdles are simply too great to worry or pursue institutional unity. Most Anglicans consider themselves Protestants, not RC lites, and understand that Rome has not repudiated doctrines which are dangerous to the Gospel.

But the WCC is a waste of time and money as well, though for different reasons.

Real ecumenism is best encouraged at a grassroots level, Christian to Christian, parish to parish. Far more is achieved at that level than will ever be achieved by talking heads at the top. Cooperation on local issues, and on grassroots political campaigns, especially pro-life issues, can bring Romans and Protestants together in ways that actually achieve something, and that honour the work of the Holy Spirit without pretending to full doctrinal agreement.

George Carey is a breath of fresh air. A Bishop who does not mince words and speaks clearly, who is more interested in truth than political spin, and more interested in following Christ than following the fashionable idols of Western liberals. Can we re-elect him?

Father Ron Smith said...

"Or perhaps it is just a question of focusing on the question! The question here is not about the spending of money on GAFCON etc but on ARCIC." - Dr. Peter Carrell -

Precisely, Peter. That's what I'm drawing your attention to:

The fact that GAFCON money is being spent to divide the Church; while ARCIS money is being spent to facilitate unity in the Church.

I ask you to judge which is according to the prayer of jesus: "That ALL may be one".

The relative success of either venture may be in doubt. however. the motivation is not!

Shawn Herles said...

GAFCON is spending money to unite the Church and preserve and defend the Gospel.

It is the Inclusive Church organization and the proponents of homosexual marriage who are dividing and destabilizing the Church and forcing the Church to waste money in their obsessive pursuit of a single issue.

Father Ron Smith said...

"It is the Inclusive Church organization and the proponents of homosexual marriage who are dividing and destabilizing the Church and forcing the Church to waste money in their obsessive pursuit of a single issue." - S.H. -

If the words "the Inclusive Church organisation and the proponents of homosexual marriage" were changed to one replacement word: "GAFCON", the outcome would surely be identical. What does your argument prove?