Archbishop Louis Falk of the Anglican Church in America has issued a statement on the website of that jurisdiction concerning a set of "complementary norms" allegedly in addition to the Norms already stated in the new Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus . In it he has said the following:
"An initial set of Complementary Norms has been issued by the Confraternity [sic] for the Doctrine of the Faith, which we be [sic] discussed in detail by representatives of that body and of the TAC College of Bishops within the near future. We are now asking members of the ACA (and other TAC provinces) to study the Norms and then pose such question [sic] as may occur. (Some already have, such as: Question: Will we be able to continue to have married priests indefinitely? Answer: Yes. Question: Will those of us who were formerly Roman Catholics be excluded from the Anglican Ordinariates? Answer No. Question: Will we loose control over our Church finances and property? Answer: No) There will be more. These can be sent to your own Bishop, and he will see that they get to the appropriate TAC representatives. Your concerns, as well as your thoughts and prayers, are an essential element and a vital part of this process."
Up until this whole business started I have tried to be "ecumenical" and to hope for some sign of good faith from the ACA/TAC. Sadly, I must state very bluntly that it is very obvious that what Archbishop Falk has promised his people in this statement cannot be reconciled to the new constitution. We have read the constitution put forth by Rome. I stand by all the essays written heretofore both by Rev. Canon Charles Nalls, and by myself. I do not know why these promises are written on the ACA website, but I know that Rome cannot grant these "complementary norms" and also implement the new constitution; neither could Rome grant these "complementary norms" without first undertaking a major overhaul of its Canon Laws and establishing in their place new polity.
I may be placing a target on my back, but I must protest: The statement of Archbishop Falk cannot be true. Why are they doing this? What is the purpose? That I cannot answer: But I can read the Apostolic Constitution for myself, with the added advantage of understanding Roman Catholicism and specifically the Pastoral Provisions to the boundary line, the limits to which it has been extended. The reality does not match the rhetoric.
I may be placing a target on my back, but I must protest: The statement of Archbishop Falk cannot be true. Why are they doing this? What is the purpose? That I cannot answer: But I can read the Apostolic Constitution for myself, with the added advantage of understanding Roman Catholicism and specifically the Pastoral Provisions to the boundary line, the limits to which it has been extended. The reality does not match the rhetoric.
29 comments:
It makes one wonder just how much contact the TAC leadership has actually had with Rome, when a senior TAC bishop can't even get right the name of the competent dicastery that is charged with implementing the new Apostolic Constitution.
I mean, if they really had been talking with those folks in Rome, then they would know to whom they had been talking, wouldn't they?
There is no "Confraternity of the Doctrine of the Faith", at least not in the Roman Curia. There is a "Congregation for the Doctrince of the Faith", the Prefect of which was formerly the German theologian, Cardinal Ratzinger, and is now the American _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (insert term of one's choice), Cardinal Levada.
John A. Hollister+
now the American _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (insert term of one's choice), Cardinal Levada.
The former archbishop of San Fransisco, and number two protector of child-molesting priests after Cardinal Law.
"allegedly in addition to the new Apostolic Constitution"
Um...I'm not sure why you wrote 'alleged' given that the complementary norms are provided on the Vatican website which you linked.
-Otto
Cardinal Levada belongs in a monastery doing penance for his faolure to protect children and for his protection of pedophile priests and religious, although perhaps he belongs in a US prison for violating the law.
I shake my head at the TAC issuing such a nonsensical letter as that issued by His Grace Archbishop Falk. Is he for real?
If they signed the Roman Catechism as the be all and end all of the faith, surely they need to abjure their separation from the Roman patrimony and jump in the Tiber?
Abp. Falk writes that the A.C. provides a "parallel structure" for Anglicans. He's obviously talking about a different document from the one released publicly by Rome. And what about these questions that have "already been answered"? Where, exactly, have these answers appeared. I guess Abp. Falk has found his own Apostolic Constitution, graven on golden plates buried in New York, and that he has used his handy archepiscopal Urim and Thummim to translate them. If things don't work out with Rome he could lead the ACA to Utah.
Whatever one may think of Louis Falk, he generally writes well. This thing is so badly phrased that I can only wonder. Was he under pressure to meet a deadline set by the webmaster, pressure generated by the current wave of unrest in TAC/ACA? Or did he have a ghost? Ir reads like something written in Orlando.
Anyone who has bothered to read Anglicanorum coetibus will quickly spot at least three blatant departures from truth in Bishop Falk's note.
As for a target on your back, Fr Hart, there are lots of those out there. The paint is peeling on mine.
LKW
Fr. Hart,
Sadly, I agree with you almost entirely. I got this from our diocesan information officer yesterday, and was quite dismayed by it. If I accepted the rather Roman idea that the bishops all by themselves constitute the church, I would indeed have to flee. I am an Anglican. I recognize that bishops not only can be, but often are wrong. When they are right they speak for God to the people, and for the people to the world. When they are wrong they speak only for themselves. ++Falk is speaking for himself, as are several of the other bishops. I believe it will be made manifest very shortly indeed that they do not speak for the majority of ACA. I do doubt that ++Falk is consciously lying, but rather that a theologically deficient wishful thinking has left him in a state of self-deception, and that not to the spiritual health of those under him. I'm praying that this process may come to its fruition quickly indeed, so that we may be freed from the confusion some of our leadership has been producing and get on with the work Our Lord has given us to do.
Oy, I really hate speaking of the leadership in my own jurisdiction in such strong terms. I am very content indeed in my diocese (the Northeast) and under my ordinary, but the national and international leadership is moving in ways I cannot manage to accept, and it seems inevitable that the result will be a dismemberment of the ACA.
Meanwhile, maybe this will serve as a spur for ACC to do some real self-examination and bring down the barriers it has in place to make Anglican reunion so very difficulty. Maybe ++Hepworth and company will have done something very positive toward healing the shameful divisions we have all been guilty of. That is my prayer.
And let us finally become what we of the various Continuing sects never yet have been -- the unified expression of real Anglicanism.
ed pacht
BTW, Otto, ++Falk is clearly not referencing the complementary norms we have seen, but a putative new set of norms he is expecting.
PS. I deleted several mean-spirited comments (and accidentally deleted one I would have published). Issues, please, not name-calling. Thank you.
ed
Here is what the Complimentary Norms state:
Article 5
§1. The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.
§2. Lay faithful and members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, when they collaborate in pastoral or charitable activities, whether diocesan or parochial, are subject to the Diocesan Bishop or to the pastor of the place; in which case the power of the Diocesan Bishop or pastor is exercised jointly with that of the Ordinary and the pastor of the Ordinariate.
The Clergy
Article 6
§1. In order to admit candidates to Holy Orders the Ordinary must obtain the consent of the Governing Council. In consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice, the Ordinary may present to the Holy Father a request for the admission of married men to the presbyterate in the Ordinariate, after a process of discernment based on objective criteria and the needs of the Ordinariate. These objective criteria are determined by the Ordinary in consultation with the local Episcopal Conference and must be approved by the Holy See.
§2. Those who have been previously ordained in the Catholic Church and subsequently have become Anglicans, may not exercise sacred ministry in the Ordinariate. Anglican clergy who are in irregular marriage situations may not be accepted for Holy Orders in the Ordinariate.
http://www.zenit.org/article-27491?l=english
Can anyone make this jibe with ++Falk's letter? I can't.
alan
Just to repeat for clarity's sake. ++Falk is not referring to the norms you quoted, but to some additional set of norm that he is expecting. We have no way of knowing whether there will be such norms or what they may be, though I'm rather doubtful that they would look very much like what he seems to be promising.
ed
I have commented on this on the Anglican Diaspora board and with the same conclusions.
However, I would point out that there is room for an Ordinariate to have forumlate it's own Norms but obviously in sync with those already issued (article II of AC). I suspect that is to allow additional details for the practicalities of conversion/absorption and governance but not to depart in anyway from those already issued and the content of the Apostolic Constitution [and Complementary Norms as writ].
Be patient with me here...
So ++Falk is explaining from some new set of "Norms" he claims to have received that will contradict what has been previously stated as well as the underlying Canon Law?
The whole idea of far flung parishes overlapping dozens of RC Dioceses expecting their property to be left alone is bizarre. No doubt , there is no direct demand for deeds but The Norms call for financial support of the clergy as well as that clergy serving RC churches at the direction of the Ordinary. There are a lot of CC parishes that walk a very thin budget line- paying for upkeep and pension and then having your clergy assigned on the roster of other churches while keeping your property seems a stretch to me. The Romans have excess property as it is and trying to sell it to pay lawsuits for all their child molestation suits. They are not going to shell out bucks to support Anglican fantasies.
It's going to be mighty hard to support a parish building when you can't guarantee your priest won't be across town pulling the early morning Vat II service at St. Shlock's Sunday after Sunday. Especially if the congregation is made up of that stereotype of older ex-Episcopalians that put in a five or a ten in the plate on Sunday and eat $15 worth at the fellowship hour. You know who I am taking about!
alan
alan
Archbishop Falk's reference to another set of norms is based squarely on the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms.
"II. The Personal Ordinariate is governed according to the norms of universal law and the present Apostolic Constitution and is subject to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the other Dicasteries of the Roman Curia in accordance with their competencies. It is also governed by the Complementary Norms as well as any other specific Norms given for each Ordinariate."
"§4. The Governing Council has a deliberative vote:
b. when proposing changes to the Complementary Norms of the Ordinariate to present to the Holy See;"
(emphases mine)
This is similar to how the Missal is issued. There is a General Instruction containing norms and rubrics, but each bishop's conference is able to propose adaptation particular to its region.
"The whole idea of far flung parishes overlapping dozens of RC Dioceses expecting their property to be left alone is bizarre."
That is precisely how the Eastern Catholic Churches operate in the U.S. The Maronite eparchy of St. Maron, for example, stretches from South Carolina to Maine. One of their parishes is in my city. The Latin Archbishop of Boston has nothing to do with their parish.
"No doubt , there is no direct demand for deeds but The Norms call for financial support of the clergy as well as that clergy serving RC churches at the direction of the Ordinary."
In the AP it says:
"VI § 4. Priests incardinated into an Ordinariate, who constitute the presbyterate of the Ordinariate, are also to cultivate bonds of unity with the presbyterate of the Diocese in which they exercise their ministry. They should promote common pastoral and charitable initiatives and activities, which can be the object of agreements between the Ordinary and the local Diocesan Bishop."
For example, covering local hospitals, schools, etc. Note that the Ordinary of the ordinariate is in charge of his clergy...the local Latin Bishop will not be able to just grab them up. Also, such common activities work both ways; at our AU parish, we offer regular services of Evensong and Benediction and during Lent, the Way of the Cross. Many of the local Roman Rite congregation take advantage of that and attend.
"There are a lot of CC parishes that walk a very thin budget line- paying for upkeep and pension and then having your clergy assigned on the roster of other churches while keeping your property seems a stretch to me."
Our Anglican Use parish in Boston is pretty small; the pastor also is assigned part-time to the Roman Rite parish with whom we share facilities. He is compensated for his work in the Roman Rite parish, and always is free for our Sunday services, as well as services on Red Letter days. So if a similar arrangement were made for a formerly CC parish that entered one of the ordinariate, it would be reasonable to assume that work done for a Roman Rite parish, school or hospital would be financially compensated. Which would, I think, make it easier for the formerly CC parish financially.
The reality is far more complex in the Anglican Use parishes than Fr. Hart paints, and the Ordinariate, as described in the AP and Norms, offers an even more secure environment for the flourishing of Anglican Catholic liturgy, spirituality and theology than the current Pastoral Provision and Anglican Use.
Of course, some will view such things solely through a lens of suspicion. But that is not the only way to view things.
Steve,
The analogy with the Maronites, for example, does not apply well here, as, in their case, as you say rightly, "The Latin Archbishop of Boston has nothing to do with their parish." However, in the case of the Ordinariates, as described, that would not be the case there. In some way to be defined the Local Latin Rite bishop is guaranteed a role in the parishes of "former Anglicans". One would hope it woulkd not be too intrusive, but it simply will be there.
The real issue, however, is not found in the details of operation, but in the central issue: "Is this a conversion or a corporate reunion?" I'm afraid I can't see the proposal as anything but a conversion. Now, for those who are convinced that being a Catholic requires submission to the Roman see, this doesn't appear to be a bad deal, but I'm not so convinced, nor do I think most Anglicans of my acquaintance are so convinced. For us, it's asking more than we can honestly give.
For those who are going, the results may be what you have wanted, or at least acceptable. However, they won't match the expectations of a lot of the proponents of the move, and those who go will indeed be giving up a lot to get what they believe important. So be it. God bless you. But Our Lord did tell the story of the warrior intending to build the tower and the foolishness of not counting the cost. Do what you need to do, but please be aware of what it might cost and be prepared to deal with it.
As for those of us who stay, there is a cost to that as well. We certainly do not come out of this set of events unscathed. Whatever remains of ACA will be reeling under the weight of events. We need to be ready for that.
If we can go through all this confusing activity and still love one another, the end result for all of us will be growth in the Lord. If we bite and devour one another -- if our dialogue is dominated by anger and name-calling -- we may just be asking to hear, "I never knew you," on that fateful day.
Whichever "side" we find ourself upon, this is a test of how deeply we are following Christ. I pray that I not fail the test, no matter how much posts such as I've deleted today try to raise me to anger. Lord help us all.
ed
Steve,
thanks for the long answer but the short of it is that "as well as any other specific Norms given for each Ordinariate." cannot and will not contradict Canon Law. The fact remains that one is required to make "their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation", that alone demonstrates this is not "Inter Communion" and not "Ecumenism".
" b. when proposing changes to the Complementary Norms of the Ordinariate" does not imply that those changes will be accepted and certainly in no way implies Canon Law will be changed to accommodate a handful of people.
"He is compensated for his work in the Roman Rite parish, and always is free for our Sunday services, as well as services on Red Letter days."
Steve are you guaranteeing that your circumstances will be the "norm" for any parish that may be considering this deal? How can you make such a claim when there are only a dozen or so such AU churches? Do you suppose the RCC in USA is so homogeneous as to allow for this assumption? Yet we are not to assume the Canons don't mean what the plainy say they do?
"-offers an even more secure environment for the flourishing of Anglican Catholic liturgy, spirituality and theology than the current Pastoral Provision and Anglican Use".
No offense, but if AU is an example of what people can expect you are giving proof as to why Anglicans should avoid the AC as AU has gone nowhere, and I think while the arrangement surely has provided a small place for you, it certainly has not "flourished".
"That is precisely how the Eastern Catholic Churches operate in the U.S. The Maronite eparchy of St. Maron, for example, stretches from South Carolina to Maine. One of their parishes is in my city. The Latin Archbishop of Boston has nothing to do with their parish."
Correct me if I'm wrong but the likely reason for the Latin Bishop not having anything to do with the local Maronite parish is that they are not under an Apostolic Constitution.
alan
veri: sandbut
Otto wrote:
Um...I'm not sure why you wrote 'alleged' given that the complementary norms are provided on the Vatican website which you linked.
Yes, I know (and will edit to clarify). But, it is evident that +Falk seems to be promising a new set of norms, one that only the inside circle really knows about. If true, I am sure that they can get Cardinal Levada to make another public statement. Right? Surely, if this is true, he will come to their aid.
Poetreader said: In some way to be defined the Local Latin Rite bishop is guaranteed a role in the parishes of "former Anglicans".
I have been told that the 'Ordinary' will be involved in the Local RC Bishops Council, with full rights as if a bishop, but will report directly to the Pope. The local RC Bishops will not be able to interfere with the AC parishes directly, they must go through the Ordinary. Is this not so?
Falk writes:
"Ecclesiastical life within the colony will evolve over time as adjustments are made."
If you have recently read CSLewis great novel "That Hideous Strength," you recognize the striking similarity to the euphemistic style of the Deputy Director, the demonic Wither. Colony indeed.
But like the Deputy Director, Falk writes with such a perfectly lovely teooone. His comments would never be suppressed here.
LKW
I do not know Abp. Falk; I assume he believes all this stuff, or would not put his name to it. But, I believe it will come back to embarrass him mightily, because it is utter non-sense.
Meanwhile, it is the people of the ACA/TAC that I care about. This is not good for them. Davy Crockett went to Texas because the people threatened by war were Americans (though not in the U.S. back then). I feel obligated to speak up because the people who are being jerked around, instead of led and "pastored", are Anglicans.
Fr Hart,
This ACA member thanks you for your concern.
When I left the Episcopal Church some years ago I was able to keep my trusty "Imgettingsmokeblownupmywazzo "O" meter.
It's pegging.
alan
veri:aflopa
Someone who hasn't got the cojones to identify himself has posted an inflammatory comment attacking everyone associated with this blog.
Among other things, he/she says: "The sites (sic) founder -- well, he's just plain old weird."
Given the ground rules of this blog, which I established when I created it four years ago, I doubt your comment will be published. But allow me to say that youhave honoured me by your bile.
Yours, etc,
Plain Old Weird
Ed Pacht wrote, "When they are right they speak for God to the people, and for the people to the world. When they are wrong they speak only for themselves."
A magnificent phrase, which I plan to steal and use as though it had been my own.
John A. Hollister+
It would be entertaining, if not edifying, to be able to read the comments that Ed has chosen not to post. I am not complaining however, it is your blog and you may post what you wish.
The implications of outrage intrigue me though. Who and what are the outraged? Romans looking for allies? TAC clerics looking to bolster their assertions that the AC doesn't mean what it plainly says.
I don't know much about Vatican legal procedures, but I know a lot about federal law having been a senior staffer in the U.S. Senate for nearly six years.
The language of a law trumps any explanation given by supporters in floor debates if its execution, or part of the law, is challenged in court. The court does not take into account what Senator Hubert Humphrey said about the 1964 Civil Rights Act not being a quota bill when deciding if that Act can force businesses and organizations to have an affirmative action program with goals and time tables to increase a minority presence.
Similarly, "report language," that accompanies a bill to explain various provisions, is not considered in any court action.
What the language of the law says is the only consideration.
From my experience I recognize the language of the AC as classic left wing jargon that leaves the door completely open to major interference from the Roman bishops.
Let the buyer beware!
"However, in the case of the Ordinariates, as described, that would not be the case there. In some way to be defined the Local Latin Rite bishop is guaranteed a role in the parishes of "former Anglicans". One would hope it woulkd not be too intrusive, but it simply will be there."
Ed, The Norms spell out that the Latin bishop's role with the clergy of the ordinariate parishes is subject to "a written agreement between the Ordinary and the Diocesan Bishop" (Article 9, 3).
"The real issue, however, is not found in the details of operation, but in the central issue: 'Is this a conversion or a corporate reunion?'"
Well, I do see that that is an important issue. And yes, this is a conversion, but not a purely individual conversion. The problem with a corporate reunion is this: which is the other "corporate" partner with whom Rome would reunite? Canterbury? TEC? ACNA? The CC?
As you have yourself noted more than once, the three or four main CC churches in this country can't manage to overcome their own divisions and reunite; the CC left the ACNA name unused so long that the trademark expired, only to be picked up by a rather unwieldly coaltion that surely has no hope of survival.
There's no Anglican body out there with which Rome can feasibly reunite at this time. And in the meantime, Rome is going over the heads of the bishops to make available a way for reunions of small groups who want some sort of reunion in their lifetimes. I think that the Ordinariates will be a big step up from the current Pastoral Provision and AU. I would be surprised if it is a final step.
It may well be that the Lord prefers some to stay within the CC to work for reunion amongst ACC, APA, et al., while another group is working within the Roman Catholic Church, whose parallel efforst will ultimately bring about that unity that I think is our shared hope.
"Steve are you guaranteeing that your circumstances will be the "norm" for any parish that may be considering this deal? How can you make such a claim when there are only a dozen or so such AU churches? Do you suppose the RCC in USA is so homogeneous as to allow for this assumption? Yet we are not to assume the Canons don't mean what the plainy say they do?"
Well, not having any authority whatsoever, I'm in no position to "guarantee" anything, Alan, but I do believe that clerics have a right to be compensated under the canons, and that if an Ordinariate priest is doing regular work for the local diocese, he would have a right under those canons to be compensated. As for the final question in the quote above, I'm not sure which canons you're referring to.
"No offense, but if AU is an example of what people can expect you are giving proof as to why Anglicans should avoid the AC as AU has gone nowhere."
None taken. However, I'm not using the AU as an example of what people can expect, except in the limited example of the cooperative work between Ordinariate and Latin parishes I used.
The key differences between the Ordinariate and the AU as it now exists are:
1) world-wide scope;
2) ordinariates to which both clergy and laity would belong (i.e., through incardination and parish registers);
3) directly answerable to Rome (the Pope via the CDF) not the Latin bishops;
4) the right of the ordinary to establish parishes and missions wherever there is need;
5) a governing council which will select the terna (candidate slate) from which future ordinaries will be selected;
6) the requirement for pastoral and financial councils at both ordinariate and parish level (only finance councils are required in RC parishes; pastoral councils are optional, unless required by diocesan canons, as is the case here in the Boston Archdiocese);
7) the liturgical books will no doubt be much more traditionally Anglican. I know that revisions are being worked on now, so that any future Book of Divine Worship will look much less like the 1979 TEC BCP on which it was patterened.
Ed Pacht wrote, "maybe this will serve as a spur for ACC to do some real self-examination and bring down the barriers it has in place to make Anglican reunion so very difficulty...."
I'm not clear on just what those barriers are that Ed sees as being in place, although I am sure there is something out there that he sees in that light.
What I do know for sure is that (a) every ACC bishop will listen with close attention and great sympathy to any one from the ACA (in the US) or TAC (elsewhere) who contacts him; (b) making such a conntact in no way commits those making the contact, but can range all the way from a simple "get to know you" to a request for specific information; and (c) as a number of former ACA clergy (several of them readers and even commentors on this blog) can testify, if they do ultimately decide to join the ACC, they wll be made welcome and the process will be as painless as possible.
Note that I am referring here to contacts from individual clergy and parishes. There have never been discussions between the ACC and any larger ACA/TAC group than a parish, so that would be a whole new ball game.
Such piecemeal transitions are not necessarily the ideal way to handle the problem, compared with what wider talks might accomplish. There was an attempt toward such broader talks. As has been noted before on this blog, in 2007 the Acting Primate of the ACC sent a formal letter to the Primate of the TAC, suggesting precisely such "corporate" talks.
The response was instructive. Officially, there was dead silence. Unofficially, by indirect "back channels", there was a lame excuse founded on an alleged state of affairs which even the TAC Primate ultimately admitted, in writing, was fantasy and not fact.
In the face of the present Apostolic Constitution and the conflicting stories about it that fly out of ACA/TAC headquarters, I doubt very much that invitation to wider discussions will ever be picked up. Thus the most likely scenario is that of talks with individual priests and deacons, or of individual priests and deacons and their parishes, or even of parishes which are staying put without their clergy who are putting on swim fins.
Because Ed sees serious obstacles in the way of those people, despite the numbers who have "crossed the Beach" just in the past year, I urge him to discuss that with those he knows have made that short journey, such as Frs. Wells, Nalls, and the others, for they are in the best position to explain their experiences to him.
John A. Hollister+
"exterme"
"injetanq"
Just a quick note to respond to Ed on the matter of "barriers to entry" (to borrow an economic term)to the ACC. I have to say that I and my family experienced none. To be sure, as a clergyman I was required to present a full package of credentials and to undergo a background check (which, as a parent, makes me pretty happy), and to sign the requisite documents concerning ecclesiastical obedience before the bishop. That was more of a formal welcome than anything bureaucratic. All in all, it took me about a month including scheduling the bishop;s visit. As for my family, they were received in straightway. In my experience, the door is open and the welcome most warm and friendly. I think I can say the same for the two priests who also came to the ACC at the same time, but they can put their own oar in if they would like.
Thanksgiving blessings to all!
Fr. John,
You wouldn't have found those comments edifying. In the time I've been with this blog I have refused a number of comments, more of them agreeing with my own positions than not. Some of them have been decidedly pro-Roman, and some have been aggrssively Protestant, and everything between. What they all have in common is the dimension of personal attack, and an anger that gets in the way of rational thinking. None of us here have any problem with engaging those of very different opinions from our own, but we are concerned that it be a polite and rational forum. Our masthead still says this:
"A place where those who live in the Anglican Continuum, or who are thinking of moving there, might share in robust, if polite, discussion of matters theological and ecclesiological."
I believe my invitation to this blog was in part an invitation to assist in enforcing that statement.
ed
Fr.Nalls wrote:
Just a quick note to respond to Ed on the matter of "barriers to entry" (to borrow an economic term)to the ACC. I have to say that I and my family experienced none. To be sure, as a clergyman I was required to present a full package of credentials and to undergo a background check (which, as a parent, makes me pretty happy), and to sign the requisite documents concerning ecclesiastical obedience before the bishop. That was more of a formal welcome than anything bureaucratic. All in all...etc.
Ditto.
Post a Comment