Actually, the Church of England (not sure about the Anglican Communion Office) has put the Old Catholics on notice that the full communion relationship is in jeopardy because of their progressive stance (in some national churches of the See of Utrecht) on homosexuality. Apparently it's "all about sexuality!"

[Chris - My error. I misunderstood the shorthand AOC to mean Anglican Communion Office and made that insertion. It's Simmons' shorthand for Archbishop of Canterbury. The insertion has been corrected. - JBChilton]

All this discussion of orthodoxy makes it seem that Christianity has not been constantly evolving since the resurrection event. That's simplistic and erroneous. The problem for us is our own reaction to being slighted and punished for doing what we believe is right. Yes, it is unfair but not as unfair as being crucified for preaching the Reign of God. I think a bit of perspective is required here. If God is in the mix somewhere,and I do belived that to be true, things will work out for the best.

I find myself wondering where Archbishop Williams has stood on Porvoo. He was not Archbishop of Canterbury when the Church of England signed, but he was Bishop of Monmouth when the Church of Wales signed.

The Quadrilateral was identified for ecumenical communication - sort of things necessary for working with other Christians, but not sufficient to identify a tradition, such as "Anglican." Perhaps we should consider what tradition or traditions we really reflect. We could argue from much of our theology that we are in fact Lutheran. We could argue (well, at least some of us would think so) that we were Old Catholic - so old that we're not just reacting to Vatican I but to earlier missteps in the Vatican. Or, perhaps we could petition to sign on to Porvoo ourselves - sort of an ecclesial NATO. Since we're reintroducing the historic Episcopate to the ELCA, perhaps we could do it together.

Marshall Scott

Perhaps someone can illuminate me. Is the Church of England now engaged in blessing same sex unions including those of clergy? My perhaps erroneous understanding is that because of England's civil laws the C of E must officiate at anything the state calls a marriage. Is this not so?

If it is so, then why are the so called orthodox not up in arms, demanding that the ++ABC refuse to allow the C of E to act on behalf of the state in these instances?

All very befuddling.

My apologies for any problems with Three Letter Acronym (TLA) confusion. I should have used the standard ABC. I'm correcting that on the blog.

If Williams' game is to make us more palatable to Rome, furthering ourselves from Utrect would, I would think, be moving in the wrong direction. My understanding is that Rome is much more interested in unity with Utrect than Canterbury.

Also, many contemporary Roman Catholic ecumenists have pointed out that the way around the Apostolicae Curae "Problem" may be through Anglican integration of Old Catholic orders.

David Simmons+

I've been pondering Fr. Simmons's piece over the weekend. I haven't had a chance to wrap words around my thoughts yet. The issue at hand, of course, is the statement in the Quadrilateral that the Holy Scriptures are "as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith."

Now, it seems clear that much of this fight is about the interpretation of the Scriptures. In truth, the creeds, sacraments, and the historic episcopate are all interpretive lenses for the understanding of Scripture. What I have not yet answered to my own satisfaction is whether there is an interpretive principle embedded within "the rule and ultimate standard of faith" to which the ABC or others could appeal that rule our interpretations out-of-bounds.

The central question is whether the implicit principle in "the rule and ultimate standard of faith" trumps the explicit statement that the Nicene Creed is the "sufficient statement of the Christian faith."

It is important to not confuse folks. The Porvoo Communion is not something that involves the entire Anglican Communion, and so it cannot be one of the AC's strongest ecumenical agreements.

It is a communion of Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopal churches in Europe. All of the churches in the Porvoo Communion have the historic episcopate, so it does not include the non-episcopal Lutheran churches of Europe.

Although the Bonn agreement (1931) with the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht was originally with the Church of England, I do believe that most/all members of the AC have ratified full communion with the Union of Utrecht at this point through their own synodical agreements.

I think David+ is quite right to point to the changing ecclesiology at stake here. Ecumenism seems to be a key aspect of the ABC's concerns. And it would seem that he is repudiating the Quadrilateral as the baseline for Christian reunion, or at least adding a fifth element: an official magisterium (embodied in the proposal for a Covenant). ++Rowan seems to believe that the quadrilateral is insufficient for communions to engage one another as "real" churches--in an argument that sounds a lot like that of Rome. IMHO, this is a major step away from the past 100 years of Anglican understanding, and the Quadrilateral is a wonderful way to highlight it.

Joe+

Michael, The Church of England recognizes civil partnerships of its clergy but some of them have to tell their bishops they are celibate. Civil partnerships up until this year (at least in England and Wales) could not be celebrated in any church because of the way Parliament wrote the law. The couple could only go before a civil registrar. In 2004, The C of E pressured Parliament to make civil partnerships a separate and unequal institution by not allowing them to be celebrated in church. The C of E would not support marriage equality, so Parliament went ahead with separate and unequal. Because civil partnerships did not give all the rights and protections of marriage, the C of E has been off the hook as far as having to rethink its marriage canons. There may be some pressure now to allow civil partnerships to be performed in C of E parishes, however. The Quakers and other liberal religious bodies who successfully lobbied this year to have the law amended so civil partnerships could be celebrated at houses of worship are now able to do so, which will put pressure on liberal C of E congregations to do likewise.

Blessings are done in the C of E but in secret. The C of E is in the closet about welcoming same-sex couples.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Whether or not these things really effectively undermine the CLQ, it is clear that the proposed Covenant, which my Diocese "endorsed" this past weekend, undermines Richard Hooker through item 1.2.2. See
http://home.roadrunner.com/~billhammondsr/church/srtAndCov.html

Also, maybe I've missed something, but I see no prohibition of boundary crossings in the Covenant.

I'm writing a curriculum on the early church so have been immersed in the Epistles. And as I listen to these debates, I am aware that "ever was it thus!" The debates in the early church were about circumcision (it does always seem to be about sex in one form or another) -- but the arguments were the same, the waffling (Peter eating with Gentiles but "cleaning up his act" when conservative Jews show up), the leader consultations (traveling to Jerusalem), the arguments and even the vitriolic exchanges (at least we aren't killing each other). But it does help keep things in perspective. And it highlights that this has been the issue from the beginning: Who is in and who is out? What is required to be a "true Christian?" Worth revisiting the Epistles.