No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 July 2024
The question of Anglican orders is often thought to be a mere side issue in the dialogue between Canterbury and Rome. In one sense this is true: even were Rome to recognize the validity of Anglican orders, it would not bring about reunion, as the example of the Orthodox clearly shows. Yet in another sense the question is important; for it involves nothing less than the recognition by Catholics of the true ecclesial character of the Anglican Communion. It was recognition of this fact which led the editor of this journal to commission a full-length review article of the writer’s Stewards of the Lord and to select Fr John Coventry, S.J., one of England’s leading Catholic ecumenists, for this important task. The present writer is honoured by this selection and is happy to respond to the editor’s offer of space for a reply. The review article unhappily contains serious misunderstandings as well as misrepresentations of the book’s argument. These make a reply essential—not in any spirit of personal self-defence, but in the interest of the issue itself.
page 274 note 1 Sub‐title: A Reappraisal of Anglican Orders (Sheed and Ward), London and Sydney 1970Google Scholar. Referred to hereafter as ‘S.L’.
page 274 note 2 ‘Anglican Orders: Re‐assessing the Debate’New Blackfriars, January 1971.
page 274 note 3 London 1956; out of print. A preliminary account of these mutilations was given in the writer's ‘Ministerial Intention in the Administration of the Sacraments’ in the Clergy Review 51 (1966), 763‐‐76Google Scholar. The case first advanced there, to which no reply has been forthcoming, is considerably amplified in S. L., Part II.
page 275 note 1 London and Westminster Maryland, 1960; 2nd ed. Oxford 1967.
page 276 note 1 Cf. what is said on this point in S.L. 107f.
page 276 note 2 Cf. the lengthy quotation from the French Cavinist, Max Thurian, in S.L. 187, n. 109. For further evidence of this kind see the writer's ‘Eucharistic Sacrifice: Transcending the Reformation Deadlock’, in Worship (U.S.A), 43 (1969), 532‐‐44Google Scholar.
page 277 note 1 Due to the British postal strike the writer has not yet received these papers and is unable to comment on their contents.
page 277 note 2 Cf. S. L. 208 including note 52, bibliography 345, s. v. ‘Beckwith, Roger’, 38f and 9, where clear reference is made to this theological school, though the only specific citation is of a Methodist representative of it, Franz Hildebrand.
page 278 note 1 Cf. MacKinnon,’ The Case for Disestablishment’, in The Tablet, 19th/26th December, 1970, 1229f.
page 278 note 2 Cf. Hughes, J. J.,’ Ecumenism is a Two‐way street: a Reply to Roger Beckwith’, in the Clergy Review 54 (1969), 275‐‐80Google Scholar, and ‘Let's Move Beyond Polemic: a plea to Roger Beckwith’ in Clergy Review 55 (1970), 460‐‐66Google Scholar.
page 278 note 3 The the Anglican archbishop's attitude is identical with that of successive occupants of the see of Westminster does nothing, five ears after Vatican II, to justify it, no matter how much one may respect the subjective sincerity of the archbishop's motives or his courage in swimming against the ecumenical stream and the expressed sentiments of many of his fellow bishops, his clergy, and his flock.
You have
Access