Allow me to translate from Vaticanese:

“Since you mentioned ecumenical talks, yes, we will talk to people who agree with Scripture and Tradition.”

Also, please note the standard “Vatican” diplomatic disclaimer:

“Our conclusions are impolite. Please do us the favor of drawing them yourselves.”

Chris, this is a headline worthy of MSNBC. It would have been really great if the article you linked to had quoted just a wee bit more of the original CNS story:

Pope Benedict XVI and his top ecumenical officer have said the Episcopal Church’s position on homosexuality and its ordination of women as priests and bishops make full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity appear impossible.

Responding to challenges posed by modern sensitivities requires solutions that are clearly in line with the teaching of the Gospel and of Christian tradition, recognized not only by Roman Catholics, but also by the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, Cardinal Kasper had said.

Christopher Johnson: “As always, the Vatican has Rowan Williams’ back”

“The Roman Catholic Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity … said the Vatican “supports the archbishop in his desire to strengthen these bonds of communion [in the Anglican Communion], and to articulate more fully the relationship between the local and the universal within the church.”

If I was +++Rowan, I’d feel tremendously encouraged and vindicated by the Vatican and it’s statement of support.

The quintessential Institutionalist-Enabler of TEc’s soul-destroying heresy and apostasy, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, has just been given a vote of confidence by Rome. Lovely.

The Vatican is, in fact, being very helpful to RW. They are telling him that full unity between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion is possible and that there are only three little things standing in the way of full ecumenical talks – get the entire Communion on one page, state that homosexual acts are sinful and only ordain men to the priesthood. RW has his marching orders. Now all he has to do is find a couple of days in his busy, busy schedule to get these tiny obstacles out of the way. Basically, the Vatican is saying full unity is impossible in the present cirucmstances, but with God, who knows? We’ll pray for ya.

Arn’t these the same folks who brought us this?

.. on June 29, 1998, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger …, he issued a “doctrinal commentary” to accompany Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, which established penalties in canon law for failure to accept “definitive teaching.” Ratzinger’s commentary listed Leo XIII’s apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, declaring Anglican orders to be “absolutely null and utterly void“

I suspect the ferry’s will be tied up on the Tiber’s shore just waiting for the next load

This doesn’t mean much on this side of the pond. As one of the commenters on the “Daily Episcopalian” said in response to Rowan Williams’ response, “I also don’t happen to care what the current Bishop of Rome thinks about anything.” Because, you know, Episcopalians are inclusive and don’t check their brains at the door.

The Vatican’s mild expression of support for RW reminds me of Obama’s support for the ousted Honduran president who wanted to ammend the Honduran Constitution to make himself President for Life. Obama identifies with the Honduran Fascist wanting to extend his power. Similarly, the Vatican does not want to be on record as supporting uppity Anglican revolutionaries, lest encouragment is given to Roman Catholicism’s own uppity revolutionaries. This proclamation, and nine days, will buy you a novena.

The PCPCU are one of the few liberal bits left in the Vatican. The CDF and His Holiness himself would be rather more forthright:

unity be maintained through common faith and practice based on scripture and tradition.”

I think we can pretty much leave TET out of any equation that involves the above criteria. However, fortunately the TET is not the whole of the Anglican Communion and we all know that the majority of that Communion do adhere to the above.

And yes it would be ideal for unity to be maintained but it is based on standards which the TET no longer meets. As Mark Windsor has so helpfully explained.

Paula Loughlin, I went to Captain Yips’ site and saw no explanation of “TET.” Please explain. Thanks.

The Episcopal Thing.

Katherine

From Captain Yips’ Blog.

“It’s certainly true that the heterodox modernists who are running TET (my latest, The Episcopal Thing,”

“It is our prayer that the Anglican Communion, even in this difficult situation, may find a way to maintain its unity and its witness to Christ as a worldwide communion,…”

Meaning, right now they have no visible way to “maintain [their] unity and [their] witness to Christ as a worldwide communion”

TU&D, this is not a statement of support. This is a statement of encouragement to someday get one’s shit together, coupled with an unwillingness to say that is impossible for that to be done. This is more like “Son of man, can these dry bones live? Oh LORD God, thou knowest.”

To riff off of Ed’s astute remark: right now there are four options for the AC (1) maintain unity, at the cost of any meaningful witness to Christ; (2) maintain witness to Christ, at the cost of severing relatioships with TEO leadership and its allies worldwide; (3) TEO leadership and allies repenting, so that both unity and witness might be maintained; or (4) losing both unity and witness to Christ by dithering.

Christopher and Paula, thanks. Very appropriate.

“This is a statement of encouragement to someday get one’s shit together.”

Tell it like it is, my brotha.

(to the theme from “Shaft”)

“Who is the man, don’t talk no jive with the Angli-can?”

“Ed”

“Can you dig it?”

“I hear that Roman Ed is a bad mother…”

“Watch yo mouth!”

“I’m just talkin’ ’bout Ed!”

“We can dig it.”

(Sorry. It just popped in my head. I couldn’t help myself.)

Ed the Roman -
I think you’re dead on.
This isn’t a vote of confidence per se.
Rather it is a word of encouragement to keep on moving in the right direction. It is then very specific about the parameters which constitute “the right direction”.
Perhaps both a pat on the back and a kick in the … lower back.

“It is our prayer that the Anglican Communion, even in this difficult situation, may find a way to maintain its unity and its witness to Christ as a worldwide communion,”

My translation:

“Ditch the Americans and we’ll talk.”

Papa Ratzi might have Rowan’s back, now all he needs to do is to install a spine in it so it’s of some use.

With the collapse of Anglo-Catholicism, any real prospect of full communion between the Anglican and Catholic churches has pretty much evaporated. Too many theological obstacles have accumulated in the last 30 years to be cleared away any time soon.

we all know that the majority of that Communion do adhere to the above

No, the majority of the Communion is nowhere near

Which part of ordination of women as priests and bishops make full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity appear impossible don’t you understand. The majority of the communion, currently, either ordains women or accepts the ordination of women. Funnily enough, ACNA, if it chooses to ban women’s ordination and to remove its “priestesses”, could actually make a very significant move back towards Catholicity.

But, hey, they’re Anglicans. Worse than that, most of ‘em are very long term Episcopalians. Multiple Integrities. Duncan and Iker. Yeah no problem.

I don’t really understand your purpose in being here, sinner. I am told that you are a troll, but o.k. what IS your overall point in posting? Maybe it’s just that-to be a troll.

He wants to demonstrate that conservatism is indistinguishable from unhinged bigotry.

I would think both liberal and conservative Roman Catholics want +RW to keep doing what he’s doing. Liberal Catholics have some hope that, if Anglicanism holds together, it will influence Rome to become more like Anglicanism. Conservative Catholics, however, can see that, the longer +RW keeps up his AC-destroying waffling, the more conservative Anglicans will be compelled to cross the Tiber.

P.S. I don’t really understand your purpose in being here, FenelonSpoke. I am told that you are a troll, but o.k. what IS your overall point in posting? Maybe it’s just that-to be a troll.

Fenelon, Sinner is kind of like your old, smelly, grouchy tomcat that claws the furniture, leaves headless mice on your bed, and sprays all over the place, but still you can’t quite bring yourself to kick him out, because for some reason you’re fond of the old monster and after all, he does keep the mice down

TUaD, the English tend to get rather twitchy about any perceived interference by Rome in their internal affairs, so this is as much as the Vatican (and it’s the Council of Christian Unity who’ve issued this, not Papa Benedict who’s undergone a broken right wrist while on holidays and is only now coming home from vacation) can say or do as encouragement. Anything smacking of disapproval will be seen as tantamount to sending a second Armada manned by Jesuits to invade and start burning Englishmen at the stake, and may well spook the Church of England into veering towards the “Oh yeah? Well, we’ve just decided to ordain a Christmas pudding as our next bishop, so there!” and break into a chorus of “Rule, Britannia”

I agree with the general interpretation that behind all the diplomaticese, it’s saying “Time to get it in gear, Rowan. Start kicking butt and deciding are you lot a Christian church in the apostolic succession as you keep going on about, or are you a debating club and Palm Court thé dansant? We’ll be over here chatting with the Orthodox if you make up your mind anytime within the next five years or so.”

Fuinseoig

ROFLMTO Well at least it would be a Christmas Pudding.

I know Rome’s had a lot of practice at this diplomatic stuff and isn’t used to this sort of thing, Fuinseoig, but, American Westerner by birth and temperament that I am, I wish that just once they’d come right out and directly tell Dr. Williams that very thing.

Peter,

Several people have said that they think that sinner is a troll. Forgive me if that is not the case, I think his/her statments are deliberately intended to push the envelope to get a response. I regard that as “trollish” behavior

Is “sinner” your nom de troll? ;^)

I would think my purpose in posting here is fairly obvious. I find areas of agreement I can reach theologically with people who are former Episcopalians and current Catholics. I also am opposed to various actions of the Episcopal church. I would think it clear by now to most people here that I am not a troll, but if you wish to think so that’s your perogative.

“Oh yeah? Well, we’ve just decided to ordain a Christmas pudding as our next bishop, so there!”

Fuinseioug, I think the pudding would be forthright by comparison.

“I wish that just once they’d come right out and directly tell Dr. Williams that very thing.”

Chris, I think the ABC knows that he’s been told that. God knows he has had enough experience with understatement.

We’d certainly like to hear it, of course, but this would be a bit like His Holiness summoning Curran et al. to a meeting at Castel Gandolfo at which he whipped out an MP-40 to fill them full of lead.

And if you are told that I am a troll, Peter, is by isn’t anyone who has said it outloud. :^)

Then again some people just get the heebee jebees from an ordained woman. ;^). Then there are others who don’t support women’s ordination who can deal with me as a sister in Christ and realize that yes, people from both the Protestant and Catholic tradition can find areas of agreement. I am thankful for them.

Chris – the Vatican practices diplomacy the old fashioned way. How do you know they haven’t done exactly that behind the scenes? I’m not saying that they have, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Could we find another holiday dessert to ordain? How about trifle? Well, that’s probably not a holiday dessert, but it’s tasty, IMO. Christmas pudding is only tolerable, IMO, if its vestments contain a nice covering mitre of hard brandy sauce.

I like your image, Fuinseiog. I’ve had some cats like that.

I apologize, Peter; TUAD did suggest that I was a troll, I believe. Forgive me if I didn’t take his word as Gospel.

robertf, you have got to stop making me choke myself to avoid laughing out lout in the office.

TET?

But is the TET offensive?

(sorry; couldn’t resist…I know: groan)

Funseoig–LOL!! You mean they haven’t already ordained a pudding??

FenelonSpoke: “TUAD did suggest that I was a troll, I believe.”

Only in the same manner by which you suggested that Dr. William Tighe was a troll.

I can think of some bishops for whom the pudding image is not inapt.

As to Sinner’s latest, the ACNA has floated no proposal to ban the ordination of women priests in those of its jurisdictions which accept them, nor to remove any existing female priests, so his comment is mostly nonsense, as usual.

Paula, you’re right! How could I be so insensitive and sectarian! Well, I am Catholic, what do you expect?

I should of course have said a “Winterval Pudding”. Or a “Holidays Pudding”. Or a “Yule Pudding”, though that might get confused with the Yule log, or with stollen, or both.

Christopher, like I said: Rome comes out and says “Rowan, is you is or is you ain’t my baby?” and there will be screaming and running around like headless chickens and cries of “No Popery!” and “Remember Bloody Mary!” and “He blew with his winds and they were scattered” and all manner of fulminations about independence, Britons never never never shall be slaves, the Glorious Revolution, the Man of Blood, and liberty, equality and fraternity (okay, maybe not that last one).

And that would only be the liberal broadsheets

Ed, seeing as how Charles Curran is currently teaching at “Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, as the Elizabeth Scurlock Professor of Human Values”, I’m still not quite sure if this counts as revenge for the Reformation.

Not buying it, F. Not in this day and age. I think that if Rome were to come out and say to Dr. Williams, “Rowan? Listen. Either decide something for a change or we’ll go talk to those nice ACNA/FCA folks over there,” that would focus Dr. Williams’ mind considerably. But that’s an American Westerner talking.

Why the Pope has left Kasper, at age 76 a year beyond the age at which he was required to submit his resignation is beyond me. This guff is typical “Kasper speak;” he’s not a liberal, but orthodox and mildly conservative, with a strong self-promoting streak. Why he seems to take the closing chorus from “Life of Brian” as the theme song of the PCPCU (= Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, or “Ecumenical Secretariat” for short), especially in the light of his blunt address to the Church of England House of Bishops in July 2006, and his similar, and rather thinly-attended, discourse at last year’s Lambeth Conference, is beyond me.

He is, however, on the way out. We shall see who succeeds him. My money is, at the moment, on another native Germanophone.

“We shall see who succeeds him. My money is, at the moment, on another native Germanophone.”

Von Schönborn? Saints preserve us! Oh well at least it would get him out of Vienna and present an oppotunity to put someone in place who would finally bring the hammer down on Linz.

Chris, an Orthodox leader in the US did just that. Perhaps that got Rowan’s attention. But since Rome is reportedly busily talking to not only the TAC but also to Forward in Faith, the ACNA/FCA might be farther down on that list. The talks with English FiF should get Rowan’s attention, though. He did actually recommend to Synod that it delay on women bishops; ineffectually, as usual.

“His Holiness summoning Curran et al. to a meeting at Castel Gandolfo at which he whipped out an MP-40 to fill them full of lead.”

Have I sinned because I couldn’t help but smile at that image?

Dr. Tighe, it may be that decades of dealing with Anglicans have led to a certain reluctance on the part of any volunteers to step forward to take on the post?

Christopher, I do actually think Rowan would love to get a direct message of that nature from Rome – and of course, we have no idea what he and Papa Benny say to one another in their little chats – but you have to remember the political implications.

The Church of England is a state church, by law established. The body responsible for decisions as to its status is Parliament. Most English people have a notional allegiance to it, it has an aura of tradition and ceremony that satisfy the needs for ritual in the state, and it represents itself as being the church of everyone, not just those who physically turn up and sit in the pews (I’m surprised TEC haven’t adopted this notion for its membership figures – ‘we’re not just the church of those who self-identify as Episcopalians, we’re the church for all the people, so if you count the total population of the United States…’).

It’s like the old joke about the Army recruit, being asked for his religion when filling out his details, and replying “I don’t really belong to any religion”, to which the sergeant replies “I’ll put you down as CoE, then”.

The political, historical, sentimental and nostalgic associations constellating around the Church of England do mean that any strong indications from Rome as to the direction it should be taking will be very much resented, and if Rowan is perceived as ‘taking his orders from the Pope’, a spirit of opposition will mean that any initiatives that seem to comply with requests from Rome will be stymied.

English newspapers, when dealing with converts to Catholicism from Anglicanism, tend to use headlines featuring the word “defect”, which (to my ears at least) has the connotations of “desert, default, betray, abandon, change loyalty” – it’s a term of patriotism rather than religion, as when speaking of a ‘defector’ from one nation to another, almost a traitor. And it is perceived, on a subconscious level, as tantamount to treachery.

And don’t forget, the Anglican Communion is more or less a creation of Empire, and the English still have a kind of attachment to the idea of Empire and a nostaliga for when they ruled the world and were the global superpower.

So any muscling in by Rome on the Anglican Communion would not be received well by any means, and it would not be seen as a religious matter affecting historic Christianity, but as a power grab.

What really makes me so sad, Fuinseoig, is the memory of those heady days in the first, half plus a little bit, of the twentieth century when hopes for Anglican-Roman ecumenical relations ran so high. What a great loss, and I think the Vatican is not dancing for joy at the dire straits of Anglicanism, but is rather mourning.

we have no idea what he and Papa Benny say to one another in their little chats

To my knowledge, there was a 20 minute meet and greet on Rowan’s last trip to Rome, but nothing substantial. A quick google search didn’t turn up pictures, though there might have been a photo op.

Katherine – yes, indeed, and I hope you understand that the snide comments by at least this Catholic are directed at the Episcopal Church and the parody of Christianity it has adopted, not at Anglicanism itself. While I have substantial disagreements with Anglicanism, it’s travails are not a source of joy.

Hey, guys, you might want to visit the “Anglican Curmudgeon” blog to read his latest posting:

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

“Whither the Anglican Communion (Redux).”

It is a cogent piece, although where he gets the notion that the Queen (like her mother and late sister) has Anglo-Catholic inclinations I cannot fathom — as I have just indicated in a comment to that piece.

Thanks, Bill, I’ll go look. However, American commenters in general seem to have a fixation on the Queen which goes beyond what she is actually able to do in these days, whatever her personal feelings may be.

Yeah, I know, Ken, but this picture makes me smile:

http://a1.vox.com/6a00cd973088ba4cd500fa969dc9210003-500pi

Now, it can be argued that he was asked to preach by Cardinal Kasper and that this is just a sign of creeping liberalism on the part of the Ecumenical Secretariat, but on the other hand, Rowan went there on pilgrimage with the Walsingham devotees. That didn’t just happen by accident.

I know I sound crazy every time I say this, but I genuinely do think he’d have been a lot happier as one of ours, doing vaguely progressive theology in some nice academic post and getting reined in when he veered too far leftwards

A reminder that in almost all cases HM does EXACTLY what her principle adviser, the PM tells advises her to do. HM does not have the discretion to put a boot up Rowan’s ass unless Gordon Brown thinks she should, in which case she certainly will.

Ah ha.