Friday, October 7, 2016

Reception/recognition of each other's episcopacies?

Profound and provocative (in best sense of that word) analysis of words and gestures in Rome's meeting with Canterbury the other day.

It's a new day dawning ...


21 comments:

Father Ron said...

I have made personal comments on the subject of this thread on my kiwianglo website, Peter; so shall not clog your page with further comment - except to say that; the picture at the top of your presentation of this article by 'Living Church' says a lot about complimentary priesthood bewteen the Anglican and Roman Catholic Leaders - the joint Blessing bestowed by the Pope and the ABC.

Rosemary Behan said...

http://gafcon.org/2016/10/unity-the-real-and-the-counterfeit/ This is where you go wrong. I refuse to discuss any longer the spurious unity that is so often mentioned. I HAVE unity .. with HIM.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Rosemary
There is a long way to go in Anglican and Roman Catholic unity, not least for reasons Peter Jensen approves of, namely sorting out questions of what truth is agreed between us.
Nevertheless we can applaud, I suggest, all recognitions and receptions which measure what is agreed between Christians as real points of unity and not as spurious points, and yes, that real unity is a unity in Him.

Rosemary Behan said...

I don't suppose for a moment you are deliberately missing the point Peter, but I'm not at all sure what your point IS. If you made your main point in your recent submission .. which I have always understood you did .. on the basis that we must have unity [and social justice of course] then it my link shows you are wrong, because we already HAVE unity in Him .. we can't deny Him and ask for more by making 'accommodations.'

Father Ron said...

I must confess, I find it sad that New Zealand Anglicans should feel they have to turn to the alternative Anglican Church of the Gafcon Provinces to find their spiritual comfort. Is our ACANZP Church so out of kilter with open, traditional, Canterbury-style Anglicanism that even paid clergy of our Church and their families have to raise up rival para-churches to get their own way on matters of 'being Church'?

Whatever happened to brand loyalty? Let's face it; FoCANZ will never become our national Church in Aotearoa/New Zealand and Polynesia - even if it erects its own para-Diocese. Its links with Sydney's ex-Archbishop Peter G. and the Gafcon will never attract more moderate Anglicans to its narrowly confined conservative agenda. Trad. Anglicans are more inclusion-oriented. And all this going on while our Diocesan is on study leave!

Father Ron said...

In my last comment I wrongly described the ex-Archbishop of Sydney as Peter G. I now realise it should have been Peter J. See! I had just about forgotten who he is already. His current activities are so far from New Zealand culture.

Jean said...

For me personally I think it's great. I get excited - I know everyone gets a buzz out of different things. The reason I get excited is because I think Rosemary that this sort of meeting actually is not 'spurious unity'. It neither denies the differences between two denominations nor ignores acknowledging the 'wounds' carried by both due to actions both were guilty of historically.

To me it recognises the growing trend of individual christians of all denominations in realising they are one in Christ with members of other denominations. For the Catholic church, the mere recognition there is authentic Christianity outside of their tradition is huge - and yet I imagine well I know this recognition has happened by some at the lay level for some time.

I do not believe the move is to become united in the practical in the sense of forming one physical church as such but exactly what Jesus desired for the Church (which are his people) to see themselves as one in him. I think this will be a witness or could be to the world as often the message given to the world by our churches is not that we are first Christian and second go to this or that church, but that we are first defined by the church we go to.

Here are but a few examples of what I have witnessed:
I'm not Christian I am Catholic. Or in a Pentecostal church listening to person praying for Anglican's to be brought to bellief in Christ. Or a non-church goer with parents of different denominations talking about how to bring her children up in her Father's church she will first have to convert? Or in an Anglican church overhearing a person whispering, I don't see why we have to invite the Presbyterians. Or overhearing at a cafe, I think he (their Minister) was bought up Baptist as it seems like he is trying to do an altar call in every sermon without actually doing it, Or hearing a person share how they were told by someone 'but you are a Salvation Army-ist,' despite being a baptised Anglican and serving in said church for decades. Or a friend whose Jesuit brother believes she is going to hell because she is not attending a Catholic church. Or in an Anglican church over morning tea people discussing how one particular worship song was Pentecostal don't you think?

For certain there was good reason for the reformation, there are good reasons for churches or people to leave places of worship they believe are not genuine expressions of faith in Christ. But is a beautiful thing to realise Christ can, will and does restore such divisions; and to see more and more Christian's come into a comprehension of communion with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ based on their belonging to His body not 'their' church.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Rosemary
We are perhaps talking at cross-purposes!
In this thread, focused on whether unity is possible between Anglican and Catholic churches, I responded to your linked article in terms of common, or not, ground between these two churches.
However if you are making a point about whether my continuing urge to find a way forward for ACANZP involves spurious or real unity, then that is fine to question what I propose. My response is this: only if we are agreed to find a way forward in terms I have submitted will we find out whether real or spurious unity according to my proposal is possible.
If we are not agreed to try to find such a way forward then we will never know whether my way would involve spurious or real unity.
What I have proposed is not very different from what is already the case in ACANZP so we might question whether we have spurious or real unity currently.
I think we currently have a fragile unity!

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
I am not going to publish your last comment because it includes a put down of fellow Christians.
Play the ball, not the man!

Shawn Herles said...

" Is our ACANZP Church so out of kilter with open, traditional, Canterbury-style Anglicanism that even paid clergy of our Church and their families have to raise up rival para-churches to get their own way on matters of 'being Church'?"

Whether or not ACANZP is out of kilter with "open, traditional, Canterbury-style Anglicanism" is not the issue. It is a question of whether ACANZP is out of kilter with Biblical teaching.

"Whatever happened to brand loyalty?"

Loyalty to Christ and His written Word trumps loyalty to denominations.

Whether or not there is a slit in the future, currently FOCANZ is a fellowship within ACANZP anyway.

Shawn Herles said...

I was going to respond to the issue of this thread, but I agree with what Jean has said 100%!

Glen Young said...


Hi ,Peter,

"I think we currently have a fragile unity".

I think we have the foundation of a very good UNITY in "Standing Resolution Intercommunion 1.Old Catholic Church".

But why do we want to alien ourselves, to a modern secular agenda, rather than Christ's Church and His Holy Writ?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Glen
Have you ever researched what the Old Catholics think about SSB?

Bryden Black said...

If I may Rosemary. The important thing about the prayer in Jn 17 is how it shifts, with its sections flowing one into the other. So that when we move into vv.20ff it's envisaged that the circle of communion in the Gospel is becoming enlarged. Now; in this setting the key verbs are expressed as subjunctives "may be". Furthermore, there's the strong word "become" in v.23. For unity is BOTH gift and CALLING. Just as we are crucified with/in Christ, so too are we to put to death/abstain, etc. Just so the four marks of the Church are gift and calling.
And finally, we need to be rather careful about this "spiritual" language surrounding both the marks of the Church and our life in Christ. Of course all is derived from the Spirit - Rom 8:13, Eph 3:14ff. That said, we have an essentially visible incarnational faith. The "glory" of Jn 17 and the entire FG is MANIFESTED. Just as the love of 1 Jn 4 is to be made as concrete as God's love for us. So; "spiritual" it may indeed be - but we spiritualize at our peril, I suggest.
In other words, the gestures mentioned in TLC article are not empty signs - even if they are not yet full enough to carry the full weight of the unity to which we are duly called in the Church. For that to happen, robust repentance (in many senses) will of course be required - Jn 17:20ff surely arises out of the previous section!
(And btw, mutatis mutandis, everything said here applies to ACANZ&P's current 'dilemmas' just as much ...)

Father Ron said...

"Whether or not there is a slit (sic) in the future, currently FOCANZ is a fellowiship within ACANZP anyway" - Shawn Herles -

However, should there be a s(p)lit, then the split will be - de facto - a split! No gainsaying that reality.

Father Ron said...

By the way, Shawn. How's the 'house-move' going? I understood we were going to have to do without your comments for a couples of weeks. Are you in already?

Shawn Herles said...

"By the way, Shawn. How's the 'house-move' going?"

We are currently packing everything up. Always a good opportunity to get rid of stuff we don't need.!

"I understood we were going to have to do without your comments for a couples of weeks."

Not quite, I will likely be less active, starting tomorrow, because of the move and because I am slowly hacking away at my welding trade certificate and I have tests coming up. But I will pop in now and then.

Shawn Herles said...

I came into Christianity through the charismatic renewal, which had a very catholic approach to the church, in the sense that denominations and the differences between them were just not that important. I worshiped in charismatic Protestant churches and charismatic Roman Catholic churches happily. That experience had a major effect on me, and I think on a lot of people in the CR at the time. To this day, I don't understand my faith in denominational terms. I go to an Anglican church in the mornings and a Vineyard church in the evenings. So long as a church is Christ-centered and respects the authority and importance of Scripture, the rest just does not concern me that much. I have come to a stronger appreciation of the Reformation and the five Solas, but that does not get in the way of seeing the good in closer and better relations between Protestants and Romans, and the Orthodox as well. And better relations between the various branches of the Church is perhaps more important than ever in the West, with the growing threat of a resurgent Islam.

Rosemary Behan said...

Culpa mea, Jean, Peter and Shawn are quite correct. What I said had nothing to do with the Rome/Anglican dialogue, but was a continuation of the SSB controvery that preceded this post. My apologies.

And FWIW, I have NEVER had any doubt that I have unity with Roman Catholics, Baptists, Charistmatics et al.

Glen Young said...


It would seem that Fr.Alexander Lucie-Smith has similar thoughts, to those I expressed, regarding Rome/Canterbury union.



MichaelA said...

"However, should there be a s(p)lit, then the split will be - de facto - a split! No gainsaying that reality."

Is it reality? What one person sees as a split, another may see as merely differences of an administrative nature or on adiaphora. What one person sees as unity, another may see as merely window-dressing. And so on.

The point has been made well by others above, that when Jesus prayed "that they may all be one, as You and I are one" he was not talking about institutional unity. I am indeed unified with millions of Christians (if not billions, its getting very close to that) all over the world.