Show menu
CFR-RC-52-25 ~ Note for Rev. Christopher Hill

Document data

Protocol: CFR-RC-52-25
Dated: 28 July 1976
Lambeth Library: CFR/6/3/1/52

Fonds
CFR, (Working correspondence)

Persistent link

iarccum.org/doc/?d=743
This persistent link may be used in print publications to link to this document.

Protocol numbers

Many of the documents in this collection have been assigned a protocol number, eg. ARCIC-44. These simply indicate that the document was distributed to the commission members. They do not signify provenance.

Copyright

Copyright in minutes, statements and other core papers is owned by the respective Commission. Requests for extensive quotation or use should be directed to the co-Chairs. Copyright in papers by named authors remains with the author.

John Howe ~ 28 July 1976

Notes written by Bishop Howe in response to Mgr Moeller’s letter dated 10 July 1976.

This document has these items:
Related documents:

28 July 1976

Note for Christopher Hill
C.F.R.

Mgr Moeller’s Letter, 10 July 1976

This letter must surely be related in some way to the ABC’s letter of February 1976 to Card. Willibrands [sic].
But if so there seems to be a considerable measure of confusion.

Moeller’s letter only makes sense to me [if] it relates to the 1975 motion of the C of E General Synod asking urgently for talks with Rome on (specifically) the Ordination of Women.
Whereas the ABC’s letter is about the ACC, Anglicanism and the informal talks last November.

Thus Moeller refers only to xxxxx CFR (which is more likely than ACC to relate directly to the C of E), and the ABC only to the ACC and the Anglican family.

ABC’s letter is a direct outcome of the Note from the Informal Talks, and quotes the request xxxx for a consultation between Anglicans and Romans “not to discuss whether or not it is right to ordain women, but to try to find to what extent and in what ways Churches with women priests and Churches without can be reconciled in sacramental fellowship”.

ABC points out that it will take time (and through me) to put together the Anglican membership. Moeller assumes it can be done more or less at once, and he is presumably thinking of England only.

I cannot see that a decision is possible about a consultation until all this is sorted out.
I do not think this can be fulled coped with with Bp Torrella when he calls here tomorrow.

Incidentally for anything less than ‘Anglican’ we shall need to consider very carefully the likely re-actions of other Anglican Chs. This subject is no sleeping dog!

Passing thought – who pays? Ditto – where would meetings be?

John Howe

The manner of the typing is all my own. Excuse please.

J.

Enclosed: rough Agenda for Informal Talks 1-3 Nov. 1976. As promised.

J.