How would the ordination of women as Bishops affect the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Church of England? More specifically, how would it affect dialogue?
At the end of an article about Professor Henry Chadwick's thoughts on the matter, Independent Catholic News reports on the position taken by Archbishop Nichols:
Meanwhile, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, was asked during a press conference in London on Friday 16 November 2012 about the impact on ecumenical relations if the General Synod of Church of England General votes in favour of the ordination of women bishops.On 5 June 2006, Address of Cardinal Walter Kasper, then President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, spoke on the same subject to the Church of England Bishops on the ordination of women bishops (source: Zenit):
Archbishop Nichols emphasised that a vote for women bishops would “not fundamentally alter the dialogue and co-operation” between the two Churches.
The Archbishop added: “The dialogue will continue but this is a very significant step which the Church of England now stands about to take, it would seem.”
"What follows from these conclusions and questions? What follows for the future of our ecumenical dialogue? One thing is certain: The Catholic Church will not break off the dialogue even in the case of such a decision. It will above all not break off the personal relationships and friendships which have developed over the past years and decades. But there is a difference between types of dialogue. The quality of the dialogue would be altered by such a decision.It could be said that Archbishop Nichols recognises de facto that the state described by Cardinal Kasper was already been reached in England with the ordination of women priests. Surely that development in itself ruled out the possibility of the restoration of full Church communion? If we accept that to be the case, then the ordination of women bishops would not fundamentally alter the present dialogue and co-operation which is a matter or clarification, prayer and co-operation rather than any hope of shared communion.
Ecumenical dialogue in the true sense of the word has as its goal the restoration of full Church communion. That has been the presupposition of our dialogue until now. That presupposition would realistically no longer exist following the introduction of the ordination of women to episcopal office.
Following that action we could still come together for the sake of information and consultation; we could continue to discuss and attempt to clarify theological issues, to cooperate in many practical spheres and to give shared witness.
Above all we could unite in joint prayer and pray for one another. All of that is, God knows, not negligible. But the loss of the common goal would necessarily have an effect on such encounters and rob them of most of their élan and their internal dynamic. Above all -- and this is the most painful aspect -- the shared partaking of the one Lord's table, which we long for so earnestly, would disappear into the far and ultimately unreachable distance. Instead of moving towards one another we would co-exist alongside one another."
Cardinal Kasper's address stated explicitly that corporate reunion was now unreachable. In the Year of Faith, as we look again at the texts of Vatican II, it is worth noting another comment that he made in the same speech:
It [viz. the ordination of women bishops] would, in our view, further call into question what was recognized by the Second Vatican Council (Unitatis Redintegratio, 13), that the Anglican Communion occupied " a special place" among churches and ecclesial communities of the West. We would see the Anglican Communion as moving a considerable distance closer to the side of the Protestant churches of the 16th century.
15 comments:
So tired of this 'hemming and hawing' by Catholic Bishops on this subject. C of E Women Bishops? When it happens dialog on reunion is officially DEAD!
Anyone believing otherwise is just fooling themselves. How much longer are the Catholics going to continue this facade? In fact, for all intents and purposes it's dead already. Notice no one ever brings up what will be left to talk about after WO occurs. Co-operation in what? The end of all things is upon us. Get over it!
Did anyone ever seriously believe that there was the remotest possibility “of the restoration of full Church communion” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England? Just supposing the unlikely event of a joint commission drawing up some hypothetical re-union document, who would seriously believe that it would have been acceptable to the Evangelicals and Liberals in the Church of England? I’m old enough to remember the grand scheme which the major non-Catholic denominations had for reunion by 1980. Ah, the heady days of ecumenism in the 1960s! Where has it all gone? ‘Gone to graveyards every one.’
Whereas there was talk infinitum about reunion all round in the 1960s nobody much seems to be talking about it any longer.
There can be no more relationship of ANY kind with the CoE, if they go through with "so-called" women bishops!. I would not even pray with them!!. It would just add fuel to the fire of feminism!!. They have done enough damage, with there equal rights = feminist ideologies.
As if Rowan William’s remark that the Church of England was failing to keep up with society wasn’t enough, someone else said that “doctrinal” reasons had caused the negative vote.
The time has come to accept that we Catholics are wasting our time in pursuing Ecumenical discussions with the increasingly Secularised Protestant churches.
We can continue to talk to them in a “nice” way no doubt about the ever fewer things we have in common, but the road to Ecumenism lies in dialogue with the Orthodox Churches.
If you read things uttered by Vatican authorities in which mention is made of the Anglican/Protestant communities it is always the case that they differentiate between "Protestant" and "Anglican".
"Ut unum sint" - the way ahead is clear and it is through the Ordinariate.
Upon arrival in England many decades ago I recall being surprised that something called the “Church Unity Octave” was observed annually in January. If it had existed in Ireland, I wasn’t aware of it – and there may be more reasons for that than just religion!
Growing up in Ireland in the 1950s we had little contact with ‘Protestants’. While my hometown had Church of Ireland, Presbyterian and Methodist churches, we didn’t distinguish between them. If you weren’t Catholic, you were Protestant, period. And if you were non-Catholic and from Northern Ireland you were probably what my mother called “A Black Protestant”. It had nothing to do with racism or skin color – rather with in-your-face Protestantism or anti-Catholicism (think: the Rev. Ian Paisley of years ago).
With the advent of post-Vat II ecumenism and celebrating what we had in common rather than our differences, I felt this was a positive step. They were not the ‘enemy’; they were our separated brethren. They had strayed and we should seek to bring them back – not through fulminations (that had been tried), but in Christian and Catholic charity. We should be welcoming and understanding.
However, I feared that in celebrating our commonalities we might run the risk of papering over our fundamental and non-negotiable differences in doctrine and belief. I think some of that happened and perhaps led ‘them’ to believe that the differences were not that important. The Cof E pushed the envelope with women priests – and pushed too far, beyond the point of no return. The current issue with women bishops doesn’t materially change anything. That ship has sailed and the Cof E is now further away from us than ever – and if a misguided ‘ecumenism’ has some responsibility for this, shame on us.
One cannot be in communion with God's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, when one denies the personal and relational essence of the human person, who, from the moment of conception, has been created in The Image of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female, to reflect Love, as we live our lives in relationship with God, as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters....To deny the personal and relational essence of the human person, is to deny that we have been created in The Image of God, from The Beginning.
From The Beginning, God created human persons, separate from all the creatures on Earth, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female. Let no one deceive you. A human person can only conceive a human person, and since it is true that nothing is added to or subtracted from the DNA of a human person from the moment of conception, every son or daughter of a human person, from the moment of conception, is wholly human.
I couldn't agree more Father that the de facto impossibility of corporate reunion was reached in 1994 and the ordination of women to the Anglican episcopate is of no further consequence
Highland Cathedral is absolutely right.
How can we have full communion with a church which for the most part denies the Sacrifice of the Mass, in a large part believes in the blessing of homosexual sexual relationships, believes in divorce, and all the other nonsense the C of E does?
It seems at least implicit - and more probably explicit - that in the eyes of most of the posters on this topic, and probably in the eyes of Cardinal Koch, that the inability of women to be priests or bishops is an essential part of Christian faith and practice. I wonder whether the effects of this have been fully considered.
Indeed. How can we have any kind of union with a church which for the most part denies Catholic doctrine like the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Itcannot even manage any unity within itself.
Many bishops within it believe in homosexual marriage and pre-marital sexual relations. It has no coherent guiding principles.
As an institution it is morally bankrupt.
Before anyone objects to what I have said, I accept that there are many decent people in C of E pews who are doing their best to follow God, but frankly they are up against it.
I do not understand why the Catholic hierarchy still plays the same old song regarding a failed ecumenism, which was faulty from the start. Do we not have a mandate from Christ to preach to all nations the real deal? The two statements are simply not strong enough and confuse many good Catholics in the pew.
ARCIC has failed (which some of us figured out was flawed a long, long time ago) and the Anglican Church is fast removing itself from an semblance of being in the mainstream of Christianity.
Stop the ecumenical dialogue and evangelize.
Did anyone ever seriously believe that there was the remotest possibility “of the restoration of full Church communion” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England?
Some did.
But they were usually the ones willing to chuck out however much Catholic doctrine as might be necessary along the way to make it happen - doctrine they didn't particularly like in the first place.
Addendum:
In researching Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, I came across this from then Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter of October 28, 1995:
“Finally, there have been some commentaries on the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which have suggested that the document constitutes an additional and inopportune obstacle on the already difficult path of ecumenism.
In this regard, it should not be forgotten that according to both the letter and the spirit of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, 11), the authentic ecumenical task, to which the Catholic Church is unequivocally and permanently committed, requires complete sincerity and clarity in the presentation of one's own faith. [my emphasis]
Which expresses better what I was trying to say above!
Post a Comment