leters to the editor Taking reception seriously


From Mr David Felton I write to express sincere gratitude to


Dr Mary Tanner for the measured and gracious way in which she reminded readers (and the Church of England as a whole) of the implications and obligations of a doctrine of reception in the mater of orders. Dr Tanner was one of the architects of that doctrine (as applied to women in the priesthood and the episcopate) and is one who has always taken it with the utmost seriousness. Alas, this has not been the case


with others. Gras and Watch, whilst gratefully accepting the notion in so


far as it advanced their agenda, have always proceeded with a degree of certainty which is quite contrary to the tentative and exploratory tenor of Reception. Tey need to be reminded that Reception had its origins in the theology of ecumenical dialogue, and that it is in the ecumenical arena that a failure to live up to its own aspirations and honour its own undertakings will have the most serious consequences for the Church of England. Te


departure of a rump of


disaffected traditionalists may well be a price which many are prepared to pay for innovation. However, to outlaw those who hold the


same


theological understanding of orders as our principal ecumenical partners is bound to be seen as anomalous: to do so by reneging on solemn undertakings is bound to raise serious questions of probity and trust. Te credibility of the Church of


England, then, is what is clearly at stake if Reception is now abandoned in favour of the One Party State: credibility with its own faithful and credibility in the wider church. David Felton


Statutes of unity


From Fr John Greatbatch SSC I was interested to read Fr Jonathan


Beswick’s article [June], expressing his views against Anglicanorum Coetibus; I thank him for his honesty and clarity.


Late realization


From Mr Tomas Rookes I read with interest the article by


Roman generosity


From Mrs J. Martin Tat the Church of England enjoys


a considerable degree of loyalty and affection from many of its members is no surprise. Nor is it unexpected that such sentiments should be strengthened in times of uncertainty and tension. However, strong feelings may need to be tempered if justice and courtesy are to be shown to those from whom we differ. Both these qualities are lacking in Fr Beswick’s article [June]. Te Apostolic Constitution is the


result of a personal initiative on the part of Pope Benedict, in response to requests for help from a number of Anglo-Catholics. Whether Anglicans avail themselves of his offer is a mater for individual decision, but the intention has been clear: the aim is


Mark Stevens about the maleness of Jesus as Christ [June]. I have always felt instinctively that the women priests issue was not about the equality of the sexes, and that it is important to understand the reasons which go beyond equality. While


it is distinction important between that the


rights of women all over the world improve, it is also important to make the


equality


and sameness. Te inability, or unwillingness, of some people to accept the different qualities of men and women may have prevented the development in the Church of England of a separate but equal ministry. However this is surely the way forward. Tomas Rookes 77 Ruskin Avenue, Lincoln LN2 4DE


July 2010 ■ newdirections ■ 21


However, what does concern me is that as a fellow brother of the Society of the Holy Cross, how do such views square up with the statutes of our society, esecially concerning Church unity which states: ‘Te Brethren should pray for the unity of the Church Militant and in particular for reconciliation with the Holy See, working towards that end as opportunity occurs.’ Surely this is such an opportunity. John C. Greatbatch Te Vicarage, Charlestown, St Austell PL25 3NS


unity not absorption. Fr Beswick insists that acceptance


of the proposals involves ‘submiting to Rome’, a phrase well-calculated to raise Anglican hackles, though not one which appears in the Constitution. Rome is not intent on ‘submission’ but on a unity which recognizes that Anglicans have much to give as well as to receive. Te failure to ‘fulfil the aspirations of the ARCIC process’


is another


charge brought against the Apostolic Constitution. However, if ARCIC survives the current troubles, Cardinal Kaser is on record as having said that on the Roman side full unity with the Church of England has long been the goal of their discussions. Such an aspiration is impossible to achieve at present, and it may never be achieved. Nevertheless, what we are being offered now surely deserves a more appreciative response than its contemptuous dismissal as ‘no more than a distracing sideshow’. J.B. Martin 2 Dikler Close, Bourton-on-the-water GL54 2PS


Who decides? Can’t say I’m worried about all this


sex nonsense, but can someone tell me how the House of Bishops came to work out that bishops can now be divorcees, in apparent contradiction to the clear word of the Lord Jesus, but that they cannot be partnered gays, on which the evidence is, if anything, rather more equivocal? Condemn both or permit both, that I understand. But why one and not the other?


Howard Randell Swindon


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40