tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post113601667373022024..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: On the TAC and RomeFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1136871199278587572006-01-10T00:33:00.000-05:002006-01-10T00:33:00.000-05:00Since dialogue between the TAC and Rome is still a...Since dialogue between the TAC and Rome is still at such an early stage (even though it has been going on for a long time already), I would prefer for the TAC to focus more on dialogue with other Anglicans. I was very pleased to notice that Apb. Hepworth is attending the AMiA Winter Conference this week. <BR/><BR/>Also, since it is ultimately our desire to be part of a reunited Catholic Church including all the Orthodox churches, I would like to see continuing Anglicans develop more of a dialogue with Orthodoxy, particularly with the Antiochian Archdiocese and the OCA, since both of these have many former Anglicans in their midst.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I would like to see "dialogue" between Anglican traditionalists and the world at large, i.e. evangelism. It is unfortunate, but a number of continuing clergy that I've met seem much more concerned with providing a home for like minded people who already share all their views on liturgy than in spreading the Gospel to those who've never believed in Christ at all. I understand why continuing Anglicans, coming from the deep pain of changes in their former church homes, are so concerned about these things, yet the primary calling of our churches must be to be Christian, not Anglican - and to offer people Christianity. (Orthodox Christianity, of course, and in its Anglican expression in our case - but Christianity first and foremost.) This is why ecumenical dialogue and evengelism are both so important, because both the unity of the Church, and its universality are both necessary for the Church to be truly Catholic, or indeed truly Christian.<BR/><BR/>Unity and evangelism go hand in hand, and continuing Anglicans should begin by making a new commitment to the preaching of the Gospel, while at the same time repenting of any attitudes preventing unity among continuers, and between continuing Anglicans and the wider church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1136233216831839142006-01-02T15:20:00.000-05:002006-01-02T15:20:00.000-05:00The problem is that there are so many competing ju...The problem is that there are so many competing jurisdictions that an enormous area has very few people in it <I>in that particular jurisdiction</I>, while there will be more parishes of an entirely different jurisdiction in the same enormous area. If one adds all the continuing churches in the region together, omits 5 or so of the existing bishops to put them all under one, one still has an intimate diocese with an almost absurdly high ratio of chiefs to indians. Yes, one of the problems of the Continuum (and one of its main sources of disunity) is this multiplication of bishops. Depending on which jurisdictions are regarded as 'real' Continuing churches, there are up to six different bishops with jurisdiction in New England, and enough people to make up maybe 3 or 4 average parishes. Can we justify more than one?<BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1136222262412638702006-01-02T12:17:00.000-05:002006-01-02T12:17:00.000-05:00Poetreader said at the end of his comment:Union, w...Poetreader said at the end of his comment:<BR/><BR/>Union, whether with Rome or among the Continuum will not happen unless some of the 'pointy hats' are willing to step aside. <BR/><BR/>Toward the beginning, he said:<BR/><BR/>The historic Anglican genius has been to keep dioceses small enough that the bishop can be a paterfamilias, but large enough to be viable. <BR/><BR/>Would an eventual Continuum Consolidation (TM) really require shedding pointy hats? Could not the boundaries of dioceses be redrawn, actually bringing about the smaller, more user-friendly sees that you mention?<BR/><BR/>I look at the ACA diocese with which I am affiliated, and it runs from Florida to Maryland! I would imagine that in Australia they might even be bigger.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1136220891445785892006-01-02T11:54:00.000-05:002006-01-02T11:54:00.000-05:00On doctrinal issues:It is certainly true that ther...On doctrinal issues:<BR/>It is certainly true that there are issues to be discussed, and most prominently the position of the papacy. I love my Archbishop's vision, but I do tend to feel that he is a bit overoptimistic. However, I do not believe there are unresolvable differnces.<BR/><BR/>On the episcopate:<BR/>Rome has such enormous dioceses that the bishop is a remote figure. This is surely not a good thing. The continum tends to have bishops overseeing fewer people than the typical RC parish. This is surely a bit topheavy. The historic Anglican genius has been to keep dioceses small enough that the bishop can be a paterfamilias, but large enough to be viable. There has already been talk among us of reducing the number of bishops-with-jurisdiction. Already, we have retermined to eliminate the American Archbishopric at the soon-coming retirement of Archbishop Falk, leaving TAC with but the one archbishop. Union, whether with Rome or among the Continuum will not happen unless some of the 'pointy hats' are willing to step aside.poetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1136179354902956502006-01-02T00:22:00.000-05:002006-01-02T00:22:00.000-05:00The statement that there is no separartion about d...The statement that there is no separartion about dogma between Anglo-Catholics and Rome seems too bold. The Roman teaching about the meaning and significance of the See of Peter (including Universal Primacy, Infallibility, etc.), constitutes dogma. Therefore, if this dogma is now believed by persons in the TAC, those persons must all immediately become converts strictly on terms set by Rome. I do not see that happening, therefore it seems very clear that division about at least one dogma, with very wide implications, is still being sorted out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1136170224259694092006-01-01T21:50:00.000-05:002006-01-01T21:50:00.000-05:00At the moment the progress towards such an event s...At the moment the progress towards such an event seems to be less than had earlier been thought -- it wasn't that long ago there was public speculation that Rome was about to recognise TAC Orders, for example -- so one is tempted to simply say "We'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it."<BR/><BR/>However, I think that if such a union occured, the effects on the ACC and APCK would depend largely on the doctrinal dialogue that had preceeded it. The problem I see with the present TAC-Rome process is that this work does not appear to have been really begun in any depth yet, or at least not in a way that is transparent. Abp Hepworth's statement that "there are no doctrinal or moral matters of such significance that they would prevent unity between this Communion and the Holy See" is a rather bald assertion that requires much undergirding with the detail of how specific differences of the past are to be resolved. I am not claiming in any way that the Anglican Catholicism of the TAC is or ought to be incompatible with Roman Catholicism at a dogmatic level, just that such compatibility can not simply be presumed without some hard theological work being done first.<BR/><BR/>As for the institutional and organisational aspects, I do not believe Rome would take any of the Continuing Churches in their present state "as is". Rome would want to have a say in "rationalising" present structures and changing the ratio of bishops to "others". Or, to put it more bluntly, they would, inter alia, demand that a number of men resign from active episcopacy, though no doubt continuing to have the dignity of the title. These processes would be painful and might allow old tensions based on past events and personal animosities to become significant again. On the other hand, such processes could conceivably make some of these things irrelevant since many of those directly involved would effectively be -- again, if I may be permitted some bluntness -- sidelined.<BR/><BR/>But I really think it is all to early to hypothesise.<BR/><BR/>MK+Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1136149147830295292006-01-01T15:59:00.000-05:002006-01-01T15:59:00.000-05:00I would rather defer to Fathers Hart and Kirby on ...I would rather defer to Fathers Hart and Kirby on this question, for obvious reasons.<BR/><BR/>Purely from a personal standpoint, what I would first like to see is unity within the Continuum. A unified body would theoretically, at least, be in a better bargaining position with Rome. And if those discussions were to drag on for years or decades more, or even fail in some catastrophic way, we would be a stronger, healthier and more viable body.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1136147435909811252006-01-01T15:30:00.000-05:002006-01-01T15:30:00.000-05:00I was wondering: what effect do you see a TAC unio...I was wondering: what effect do you see a TAC union with Rome having on the rest of the Continuum? I have been curious how this might affect the ACC and APCK.<BR/><BR/>WillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com