From the USA, Bishop Christopher Epting comments on the Vatican’s Apostolic Constitution.
From Nigeria, the Sun has Pope Benedict’s revolutionary offer to Anglicans.
From England, Andrew Brown has written Backlash at Cif belief.
And from Rome via the USA, Cardinal Kasper on ‘Anglicanorum Coetibus’.
An interesting account of the Kaspar interview.
As one senior Anglican involved at the highest level in ecumenical relationships says – it is as “fascinating” for what it claims as it is for the “ignorance” it shows of all things Anglican.
The interview posted here does not show “ignorance of all things Anglican.” It does hint that the RCC at its highest levels views the nature of the CofE differently than does the CofE itself, but that should hardly be a surprise after all these centuries, and is hardly due to ignorance. Perhaps stubbornness.
But if the “senior Anglican involved at the highest level” thinks that the senior RC is “ignorant of all things Anglican”, what has been the much-touted value of the vaunted 40 years of dialogue? Forty years in the wilderness.
Kasper’s silence until now and his dramatic disclosure of Rowan’s late-night call surely testify still to his disapproval of the new initiative? Perhaps he is just smoothing things down to prepare for the imminent Canterbury-Rome meeting?
What is very clear from the reported interview with Cardinal Kasper, is the fact that both Kasper and Williams are truly honest, spiritual persons, with a deep theological knowledge and understanding. They both are honestly seeking the way forward with the ecumenical dialogue between our communions. God Bless them both, and they desrve our support and prayers.
Fr John
But then, Pope Benedict has been known to lack understanding of other things during his short pontificate – like the Jewish situation, his insensitivity towards Muslims, and his latest; the restoration of the ultra-Montanes. Rowan is by no means the only ‘Head of a Church’ to put his foot in it.
Cardinal Kasper is nearing retirement. He surely doesn’t want to antagonise the Boss.
Perhaps it was remarks like this:
“concern among some Anglican bishops and pastors about sharing their dioceses: one part that enters into the Catholic Church and another that remains Anglican. How to manage a separation like that? And then church buildings: Who do they belong to? Who determines if a building is owned by the state or municipality or the community, if it’s Catholic or Anglican?”
But I agree – it says little of the past 40 years.
He reads TA so perhaps he will argue his point further ….
So now the possibility of Church of England congregations leaving that church, and taking buildings and other property with them to a “personal ordinariate,” has an endorsement from the Roman hierarch responsible for ecumenical relations.
Oh, Church of England; oh, Rowan Cantuar, how do you feel now about litigation to protect church property?
Regrettable, yes. But also, and unfortunately, sometimes necessary.
Will you now acknowledge that point?
“Who determines” indeed!
Untangling ownership of church property in England would be an order of magnitude more difficult than it is here in the USA, from what I understand.
And Fr. Smith, you are too charitable. Insensitivity and ignorance are two different things.