Very intriguing. Not sure I can agree, but very intriguing.

I'm not sure whether I lean toward John or toward Jim. I find this whole thing very bizarre. Minns and Iker have already sent their regrets. I can't imagine that Rome will pick up very many people from The Episcopal Church -- the "pastoral provision" two decades ago didn't find many buyers. England is a different game -- the conservative evangelicals of course would not touch Rome with a pole, whereas English extreme Anglo-Catholics are very different from American A-Cs -- they love to follow Rome as long as they can do it selectively. (Does anyone besides me remember E. L. Mascall's delightful comic poem, "The Ultra-Catholic," from about 50 years ago?) I'm not convinced that +Benedict knows what he's doing, nor that +Rowan knows how to respond. I think the bottom line is that it is time for us, and for the CofE, just to get on with it.

I guess I think that the Vatican doesn't take any other church seriously enough to bother timing its pronouncements to influence politics within said church. On the other hand, the fact that the flying bishops set "decision day" for crossing the Tiber a week after the General Synod does lend this hypothesis a certain creedence.

I tend to agree with Jim about scheduling - a parallel perhaps to "don't blame on wickedness what can be explained equally well by stupidity." Rome is arrogant in a maternalistic sort of way about ecumenism. That hasn't changed since John Paul II spoke to the World Council of Churches in the 1980's and said, essentially, "We think ecumenical conversations are important for uniting the Church. And when you're ready to come home, we'll be happy to welcome you."

This most immediately affects the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC)/Anglican Church in American (ACA) crowd. They've wanted this for a while, and have thought about how they wanted this to work. It certainly won't change the fact that the number of Romans who become Anglican/Episcopal greatly outweighs those going the other way.

That said, it may cause some difficulties in England, where the Anglo-Catholics are ever so much more faux Roman than in the United States. Too, the appearance that not only Rowan but also the Roman bishops in England were out of the loop might be some cause for concern - but still more there than here.

Marshall Scott

Thank you to Bill Moorhead for recalling to us this instructive poem -
Pamela Grenfell Smith, Bloomington, Indiana

The Ultra-Catholic
(By the Revd Dr. E. L. Mascall)

I am an Ultra-Catholic-No ‘Anglo-,’ I beseech you,
You’ll find no trace of heresy in anything I teach you.
The clergyman across the road has whiskers and a bowler,
But I wear buckles on my shoes and sport a feriola.

My alb is edged with deepest lace, spread over rich black satin;
The Psalms of David I recite in heaven’s own native Latin,
And, though I don’t quite understand those awkward moods and tenses,
My ordo recitandi’s strict Westmonasteriensis.

I teach the children in my school the Penny Catechism,
Explaining how the C. of E.’s in heresy and schism.
The truths of Trent and Vatican I bate not one iota.
I have not met the Rural Dean. I do not pay my quota.

The Bishop’s put me under his ‘profoundest disapproval’
And, though he cannot bring about my actual removal,
He will not come and visit me or take my confirmations.
Colonial prelates I employ from far-off mission-stations.

The music we perform at Mass is Verdi and Scarlatti.
Assorted females form the choir; I wish they weren’t so catty.
Two flutes, a fiddle and a harp assist them in the gallery.
The organist left years ago, and so we save his salary.

We’ve started a ‘Sodality of John of San Fagondez,’
Consisting of the five young men who serve High Mass on Sundays;
And though they simply will not come to weekday Mass at seven,
They turn out looking wonderful on Sundays at eleven.

The Holy Father I extol in fervid perorations,
The Cardinals in Curia, the Sacred Congregations;
And, though I’ve not submitted yet, as all my friends expected,
I should have gone last Tuesday week, had not my wife objected.

Perhaps the hypothesis is fanciful. But I'm not saying it's not been the works for a while, just that it on new urgency and got rushed into play.

See, also, Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/the-popes-bold-move.html

For now, however, it seems an almost baldly political move, made at a pace more reminiscent of modern politics and public relations than the traditional ecclesiastical creaking of the wheels.

What accounts for the timing? Why now?

Indeed, why now? This is the question to be sorted out!

(especially while the Archbishop of Canterbury was on vacation and then rushed back to this announcement)

Peter Carey+