I've seen this article floating around the Ordinariate Facebook groups and thought I'd share it here. If the article is correct it looks like the RCC may be rethinking its stance on Anglican orders. What do you all think? Have any of you who are part of the ACNA heard anything about this? https://stream.org/rome-takes-histo...JCLIV6L47iM-Y8on-8_aem_QLxOXCMFXMgVRPd97j1-Iw
Seems to me more like an infiltration attempt, to tempt centuries, long lapsed, Catholic 'Anglicans', into Roman Catholic misgynistic recidivism. Still insisting on core Roman Catholic dogmas rigidly adhered to, if any other 'brother' is deemed Romish enough to be 'of the True and Catholic faith'. Ecumenism it is not. .
My thoughts each time I see this pop up are not very charitable. However, I believe if true it strengthens the Continuing Movement's position for all believers within the true, catholic Church. To quote Bishop Chandler, “…[Anglo-Catholicism within the Continuing Movement is] the fullness of the Faith of the Apostles, the wholeness and completeness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and of His Holy Church. It is a movement, but more than a movement; it is the Church in movement. This claim is not an assertion of triumphalism, but a fact of history.”
We don't need their recognition of our clerical orders but if they decide to do so, that will be nice. If it weakens the women's ordination innovation in the Anglican tradition, all the better.
Forgive me, but you hit a point of contention that needs clarity. Given our disparate past, “Anglicanism” does not fit well under one tidy umbrella. If it did, the ACNA would be part of the Continuing Movement and succinct from the more recognizable Anglican believers. Is that being captious? Perhaps. But again, I subscribe to the ideas central to the Oxford Movement after the English Reformation leaned too much “reformed” by the likes of Calvin, Zwingli, Knox and [yes!] Cranmer and needed to be “reeled in” in alignment to the Church. So perhaps that’s the Anglican Tradition? The constant tug between the orthodoxy and reformed?!? If so, the discussion may be one big circular argument and I’m just (literally) spinning my wheels! Thank you @JoeLaughon for indulging me.
Calvin Robinson, himself now canonically Old-Catholic, was massively over stating the substance of this little news blurb recently. Rome meets with various Anglican groups periodically and everyone exchanges some gifts and eat a few sandwiches but nothing of substance ever happens.
The way I see it the Anglican tradition is best defined by the formularies, the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion. To me the English Reformation was correct, in particular at retaining catholicity while correcting late medieval error, superstition (in the correct sense of the word) and liturgical abuse. Expanding the Anglican tradition to late 19th/early 20th century movements seeking to move away from this broad Reformed catholic consensus (that would fit both Hooper and Laud) has, I think, been a source of quite a lot of confusion. Another great reason why Calvin Robinson should be neither seen nor heard in Anglican circles.
I thought he was kind of a novelty anyway. This probably sounds super racist to some ears but the main appeal of Mr. Robinson was "Look, we got the most famous black guy to come speak at our event!" Whatever he said was overshadowed by who he is. He makes valid points from time to time and no one listens because they are too busy patting themselves on the back for even having him speak at an event.