If you haven't yet encountered that strange word, "ARCIC," you probably will in the foreseeable future, particularly in church materials and especially if you happen to be an Anglican (Episcopalian) or a Roman Catholic.

It stands for "Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission," and it's not the commission's first statement bearing the name of ARCIC. In fact, it's the third.

Here's the exciting story: More than 30 years ago, in 1967, Anglicans and Roman Catholics began talking to each other. That was distinct progress. They hadn't done much of that in the previous four centuries. The Archbishop of Canterbury (Michael Ramsey at the time) and the pope (Paul VI at the time) initiated a theological dialogue, two-way God talk. And, mirabile dictu, both sides soon saw that they agreed on a lot of things. Before that, when they did talk at all - rarely - it was about their disagreements.

In 1981, after talking to each other for 14 years, the two sides published a joint statement which detailed many points on which they agreed. It covered some very touchy subjects, such as the Eucharist, ministry and authority. And, surprise surprise, it was heartily embraced by both sides. And widely studied.

Now comes this latest ARCIC statement titled "The Gift of Authority" [TLC, May 30, June 6]. It is an impressive, finely tuned document and almost everybody loves it. Both Roman Catholic and Anglican scholars and authorities have been standing in the pews applauding.

The document says forthrightly that differences remain and this declaration alone will not bring unity to the two communions. But it is clearly a step, perhaps a leap, in the right direction.

I myself, a lone and squeaky voice wailing in a vast and barren land (Diocese of Northern California), have some grave misgivings about our Anglican response to "The Gift of Authority."

I appreciate the patent fact that the prose of the Anglican contributors is carefully measured and profoundly irenic. It is prayfully designed not to antagonize. At all costs it is never confrontational. But is it wholly honest? Does it over-compensate?

I certainly don't want to be waving a "No Popery!" sign, but whatever happened to our Anglican heritage? What ever happened to the Reformation? And the 39 Articles? The Anglicans who were engaged in ARCIC never mentioned any of these pillars of Anglicanism.

I have heard very few voices raised in protest against this blatant Rome-ward kowtowing. One pointed protest came from Stephen Hampton, chaplain of Exeter College, Oxford: "In matters of authority, this report is, in effect, proposing the wholesale abandoning of the Reformation."

The most prominent voice of protestant protestation has been that of a defrocked, excommunicated, silenced (ha!) Roman Catholic priest and brilliant theologian, Hans Kung, now emeritus professor of ecumenical theology at Tubingen University, Germany. Rome says Kung can no longer call himself a Catholic theologian. I seem to remember another prominent theologian who received similar treatment a few years ago when he nailed a bunch of theses to a church door in Wittenberg, Germany.

Here's what Kung thinks of our Anglican stance in ARCIC: "As a Catholic theologian (Tsk, tsk, the pope says he ain't) one can only wonder how Anglican bishops and theologians with their own solid tradition in exegesis and church history to rely on, have so clearly held back from basic questioning of the Roman system."

And is it not significant that the Anglicans never broached - not by 100 miles - the ugly subject of Anglican Orders? Did they forget that Pope Leo XIII in 1896 issued an infamous bull, Apostolicae Curae, which loudly declared that Anglican orders were absolutely null and utterly void?

Over the past century many Roman Catholic clergy and theologians have been at least mildly embarrassed by Leo XIII's ipse dixit, and have simply ignored it. They have looked the other way. But in recent times the present pontiff has resuscitated the whole fetid controversy. He says Leo XIII was right all along: Anglican orders are invalid.

But recent popes by their actions have seemed to contradict Leo XIII: They have received the Archbishop of Canterbury as truly the primate of the Anglican Communion: a real Archbishop! George H. Tavard, a Catholic adviser at Vatican II, said it well: "Without being openly contradicted, Leo XIII's apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, should be simply set aside as obsolete." (An infallible church can never say simply that it was wrong!)

And did it ever occur to those Anglican spokespersons, especially the bishops among them, that the pope was saying that Anglican bishops are not really bishops at all?

The Rev. E. Frank Henriques is a retired priest who lives in Grass Valley, Calif.