ARCIC " Gift of Authority "

[Jay2004]

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/125/06/world02.html

This article is saying that all Anglicans should accept the Primacy of the Pope. It talks about something call the "Gift of Authority".

Can any Anglicans, explain what this means?

[PaladinValer]

That article is five years old. A lot has changed since then. And no Anglican is going to accept the Vatican or the Pope in the way Catholics do.

[pmcleanj]

Here's a link to the actual document:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/documents/authority/authorityenglish.html

What this means is, frankly, not much. The "Authority" referred to in the title is the general question of authority: authority of Scripture, authority of the Church -- of individuals, of Bishops, and of councils. The pertinate question of "does the Bishop of Rome have authority over other Bishops" is neatly sidestepped in the paper, which refers only to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Scholarly Anglican discussion has always recognized the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the primacy of Canterbury being merely a pragmatic result of the Bishop of Rome's estrangement from the Anglican communion). We simply have never equated primacy with authority. Catholics who do accept the Bishop of Rome's authority seem to see primacy and authority as inseparable. The Gift of Authority doesn't support one view more than the other. Similarly, The Gift of Authority affirms the normative role of Scripture, but doesn't clarify whether Scripture can overrule episcopal authority or Tradition.

The Gift of Authority explores the common ground that already existed between Catholics with different views of authority, but it does nothing to close the gaps in that common ground. Its carefully ambiguous wording allows Catholics on both sides of those gaps to assume it's supporting their view. Ecumenism through obscurity: for the sake of conciliation, let's just not look to closely at our differences -- and frankly, that approach has been known to work.

[Rilian]

My understanding was that the ARCIC talks were on hold, at least according to this article Vatican cancels Anglican talks over gay bishop (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031202-114512-4363r.htm). I was under the impression there was also a great deal of opposition to it anyway as I think this article from a Catholic source highlights. The Futility of ARCIC (http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020104_The_Futility_of_ARCIC.html).

[pmcleanj]

I don't believe the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission referred to in the Washington Times article is the same committee as the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (which published The Gift of Authority two years before, according to the Washington times, the Commission for Unity and Mission was created). But discussions on visible unity had already been slowed, on the Vatican's part by their objections to consecrating women to the priesthood and episcopacy, and on the part of Anglicans by the alienating language they perceived in Dominus Iesus.

Radical opinion like that in the Seattle Catholic doesn't help, either of course. Calling the Church "a decentralized cult of pretend priests" and advocating "the necessary conversion of such heretics" is somewhat polemic. Fortunately, most of the real-life Catholics who are in communion with Rome don't use that kind of confrontational language; and most apologists for Rome deny that that is their true perspective.

[BAChristian]

Radical opinion like that in the Seattle Catholic doesn't help, either of course. Calling the Church "a decentralized cult of pretend priests" and advocating "the necessary conversion of such heretics"...
Fortunately, most of the real-life Catholics who are in communion with Rome don't use that kind of confrontational language; and most apologists for Rome deny that that is their true perspective.
Exactly. That kind of talk gives Catholics a bad name. You'd never hear that kind of talk from the Vatican.

You catch more bees with honey than vinegar...