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: 09 January 2020
Readers of the Journal will recall the Ecclesiastical Law Society's long tradition of serious ecumenical engagement, embodied in the biennial Lyndwood Lecture with the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, and recall that a number of members of the Society are regularly engaged with the Colloquium of Anglican and Roman Catholic Canon Lawyers. Moreover, ecumenical agreement and disagreement have canonical consequences, as, for example, in the debate about Anglican orders. In moral theology, particularly Roman Catholic moral theology, the relation between moral teaching, the confessional and canon law is obvious to any practitioner. My own interest in the Ecclesiastical Law Society was a direct consequence of my involvement in Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue as successively co-secretary, member and consultant of the various embodiments of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) from 1974 onwards. An ecumenical conversation with Canon Graham Routledge, a founder member, led me to seek membership of the Society in its early days.
This comment is an extended review of The Caroline Divines and the Church of Rome: A Contribution to Current Ecumenical Dialogueby Mark Langham (Routledge, 2018, 252pp (hardback £105.00) ISBN: 978-1-47248-981-4). Monsignor Mark Langham was co-secretary of the third phase of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC III) from 2009 to 2013 and Bishop Christopher Hill was an Anglican member of the commission from 2009 to 2018 and a consultant to it from 2019, having been Anglican co-secretary to the first two phases of ARCIC.
2 Hill, C, ‘Ecumenical Agreement and the Caroline Divines: Archbishop Harry McAdoo and an irenic response to controversialism’ in Barton, J and Groves, P (eds), The New Testament and the Church: Essays in Honour of John Muddiman (London, 2016), pp 120–131Google Scholar, on McAdoo, H, The Eucharistic Theology of Jeremy Taylor Today(Norwich, 1988)Google Scholar.
3 MacCulloch, D, ‘Richard Hooker: invention and re-invention’, (2019) 21 Ecc LJ 137–152Google Scholar.
4 Cuming, G, The Durham Book (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar.
5 See C Buchanan, Did the Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree on the Eucharist? A revisit of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission's agreed statements of 1971 and related documents (Eugene, OR, 2018).
6 ARCIC, Walking Together on the Way (London, 2018).
7 Anglican Communion Office, The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion (London, 2008). See also Hill, C, ‘Ecclesiological and canonical observations on The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion’, (2012) 14 Ecc LJ 400–407Google Scholar.
8 ARCIC, Salvation and the Church: an agreed statement(London, 1987).
9 ARCIC, Life in Christ: morals, communion and the Church (London, 1994).
10 ARCIC, Mary: grace and hope in Christ (Seattle, 2004).