The Anglican Church in America (ACA) House of Clergy, meeting at Our Lady of the Snows, have urged their Archbishop John Hepworth to resign as Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, saying that his attempt to take his flock to Rome makes it impossible for him to continue as their leader.
'It is increasingly obvious to us and those for whom we are pastorally responsible that recent developments have made it impossible for you to continue to function effectively as Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and that the responsibilities of that office add immeasurably to the personal stress inevitable in your personal situation.'...
Analysis
I remember a movie in which children in a French school had to make due with a city block, having no gymnasium or schoolyard. In the scene, the Physical Education teacher is leading the boys on a run around the city block, himself in the lead. Bit by bit, in small groups, the boys break off and leave to play hooky while the teacher, running ever forward without a backwards glance, ends up with exactly two of the original class of more than twenty. I thought, "that's Archbishop Hepworth leading his people to Rome."
It was 2008. As of yet there was no Anglicanorum Coetibus. But, I could see that Abp. Hepworth forgot to see if anyone was following him when he made his bold announcements that he would lead "400,000 Traditional Anglicans" into the Church. First of all, the TAC never promised to follow him to Rome. Second, there was never anything even close to 400,000 people in the TAC (never more than about 50,000 at its height). Third, Anglicans have never called the Roman Catholic Church the Church, nor even the Catholic Church. To us, it is a branch of the Catholic Church, and not wholly free from error. It is part of the Church, and we love its people and share much of the same doctrine. But, we also have theological differences.
Hepworth and the few who zealously followed him wanted to ignore those theological issues, with the same careless and unprincipled ecumenism that leads, ultimately, to nothing substantive (like the Charismatic version of Ecumenism in the 1970s). They depended on ignorance among all their followers, which is never a safe bet. Then, when Rome insulted every convinced Anglican with Anglicanorum Coetibus, Hepworth and his Tiber swimmer squad depended on gullibility and uninformed credulity on the part of the whole TAC.
It is notable that the ACA House of Bishops has agreed with my earlier analysis about Hepworth's psychological problems. They wrote to him in their statement,
"There is an urgent need for focused leadership of the TAC at this critical time in the life of the church. For the good of the church and your family, as well as for your own emotional, physical, and spiritual health, we prayerfully urge you to consider submitting your resignation as Primate forthwith."
I had said, "All this time the Roaming Romeward emphasis, in what people joined and contributed to as an Anglican church, was really about one man and his personal trauma." Some of his defenders screamed bloody murder, calling me by "the usual suspects" list of names. Nonetheless, the truth is obvious to the men who bear responsibility for souls under their pastoral care as bishops. The good thing is, they are doing their duty.
Let us hope, with this Roaming Romeward effort to convert them out of the way, the TAC will be a full partner in unifying the Continuing Anglicans back into one big family.
47 comments:
Archbishop Hepworth's response to the ACA House of Clergy plea for his resignation is to insist that the Bishops of the TAC elected him and still support him as their leader.
If so, it does not speak or bode well for that organization.
"If so" indeed. This is the same man who looked me in the eye, and assured me that Rome wanted him to come in and be the bishop for his people ( and later told the same thing to Canadians in the TAC). He says whatever comes into his mind. I wonder if might actually believe the stuff that comes out of his mouth.
The ACA is now seemingly aligning themselves with the APA. This would create two blocks of Continuing Anglicans, with the ACC, UECNA and APCK as the other. Is there any hope of bringing the two groups together?
Fr Theodore
J.M.J.
Father Hart wrote:
"...It is notable that the TAC House of Bishops has agreed with my...:
I think you meant to say the ACA House of Bishops.
Of course what is left in the ACA House of Bishops are only those who reject Anglicanorum Coetibus.
I find it interesting when I consider that two of those Bishops were visiting in our parish in May of 2010 and were extolling the virtues of the Apostolic Constitution they now decry.
SWR
Hepworth is very much a Walter Mitty type and its pathertic seeing TAC mmebers clutching at straws as their dream turns to a nightmare. Go to the English catholic website and look at them re-arranging deck cahirs on the Titanic.
"I think you meant to say the ACA House of Bishops"
Oops - yes. Thank you. Noted.
"Is there any hope of bringing the two groups together?"
Yes, and more than before if only because the number of parties has decreased.
SWR writes, "two of those Bishops were visiting in our parish in May of 2010 and were extolling the virtues of the Apostolic Constitution they now decry."
Repentance sometimes comes later, when the truth comes to light. That seems to be the case here.
Thanks be to GOD!
J.M.J.
WA wrote:
"...Repentance sometimes comes later, when the truth comes to light. That seems to be the case here. ..."
If it were a change of heart, then it seems repudiation of the Statement concerning the Catechism of the Catholic Church would have also followed.
They still stand by that statment. I would think they would at least provide a list of those paragraphs for their people to not believe. I bet Father Hart might even help them with the list! :)
SWR
By the way, there is no "truth" that has come to light. The Apostolic Constitution still reads the same way it did when promulgated. There has been no shift in anything the CDF has told us, nor has the Holy See failed to follow through exactly as they indicated they would.
Personal marriage situations and worry about church property issues definitely played a role in one of the individuals worries.
SWR
SWR wrote:
There has been no shift in anything the CDF has told us, nor has the Holy See failed to follow through exactly as they indicated they would.
No argument on that. In fact, i was warning everybody from the start, Rome will keep its promises, not Abp. Hepworth's outrageous spin on them.
I think that the ACA Houses of Clergy and Laity are simply acting on the fact that there are very practical, inescapable spiritual problems arising from committing to and continuing with the ordinariate scheme. If you truly, in your heart and mind and soul, accept the claims of Rome, you also have to accept that the Anglican church to which you belong is at best second-rate and defective, incomplete, not a part of the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, a mere fragment of a church pretending to be whole, at best a mere shadow of the One, True, Church. If you accept the Roman claims, how can you, for example, recite, “And I believe One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” in the Nicene Creed at Holy Communion in an Anglican church without crossing your fingers behind your back - or admitting the qualification, “To which I do not yet belong?” How can you truly believe that you are receiving the Lord’s body and blood in the eucharist when you have accepted that the orders of the celebrant, your eligibility to receive the sacrament, and the “sacrament” itself are of doubtful validity at best – as confirmed by the fact that you accept that your priests will have to be absolutely, not even conditionally, ordained before being allowed into the ordinariate and that you will have to be absolutely, not even conditionally, confirmed? If you accept the Roman claims, how can you then, so long as you remain outside the Roman communion, have any satisfactory evangelical witness or spiritual life or peace? You will be left frustrated and demoralized, in effect wandering aimlessly and restlessly in the outer darkness where there is only bitter wailing and gnashing of teeth as you gaze in envy and despair into the lighted hall where the Lord’s great, joyous feast is being held. Is it not obvious that no organization, ecclesiastical or otherwise, which so undermines and debases its own raison d’ĂȘtre, its own basis for existence, can do anything but disintegrate and die? A house divided against itself cannot stand. The ACA Houses of Clergy and Laity, not wishing to see their church disintegrate and die, have simply recognized this fact.
In practical terms the only real benefit that Anglicanorum Coetibus offers is the possibility of a limited group of Roman Catholic converts being granted the option of a liturgy in Elizabethan English. How can any serious Christian, or, frankly, anyone who wants to be taken seriously period, who has come to believe that the Church of Rome is the One, True Church, possibly delay their conversion – and thus jeopardize their spiritual health and welfare, nay their very salvation – over such a minor, precious scruple? If there can be no spiritual health and fulfillment, no certainty of salvation, outside the Church of Rome, then surely the only rational course is to run as fast as one can into her embrace regardless of her Vatican Rag liturgies, bartenders instead of priests for celebrants, incompetent popes (esp. John XXIII and Paul VI), etc.
Colin -
It is really quite simple - a request was made of the Holy See for a means of corporate unity.
The Holy Father responded with Anglicanorum Coetibus. (Please re-read the first part of the document)
The Holy Father's expectation is that if you are seeking corporate reunion you will follow the process that has been laid out.
The CDF has give clear instructions for us to continue doing what we are doing until the Ordinariate is canonically erected.
Clergy are already receiving their go-aheads from the CDF. Things are falling into place nicely.
Do you actually think what you have written reflects Christian Charity?
SWR
SWR:
I trust that Colin has written consistent with charity, that "rejoiceth in the truth." Your Hepworth version of recent history shows that you have not yet accepted reality.
Robert Ian Williams:
We all have typos; per your request, I cannot edit comments.
Fr. Hart wrote:
"...Your Hepworth version of recent history shows that you have not yet accepted reality..."
We have never gotten any of our news from, or accepted anything we do not know to be true from the Holy See.
What do you allege I don't understand about how this will unfold? Are you just upset that some ACA clergy have already received their notification from the Holy See as to their acceptance? I
There is absolutely NOTHING uncharitable in Colin Chattan's comment. He's being both charitable and factual.
Evidently, for Mr. Reed, anything short of agreement with, adoration and reverence for Roman Catholicism is uncharitable.
Sounds a bit like the gay marriage activists and Islamists, where any disagreement is hate speech and blasphemous.
Mr. Reed,
You've provided not a single refutation of anything I've written. Merely summarizing the contents and history of “Anglicanorum Coetibus” is not an argument.
My basic line of argument was that accepting “Anglicanorum Coetibus” entails individual conversion to Roman Catholicism with the option of a liturgy in Elizabethan English. Conversion to Roman Catholicism means rejecting Anglicanism as, at best, incomplete, second-rate, defective. It is therefore demoralizing and, I would say, spiritually destructive for any church or any individual to try to remain Anglican and promote Christianity through Anglicanism while bent on a course of converting to Roman Catholicism. The Houses of Clergy and Laity of the ACA have recognized this difficulty. How is any of this untrue or uncharitable?
Speaking of charity, yes, we, and I especially, could all use a great deal more – please pray for me. But I'm afraid being lectured on the need for charity by a supporter of the Romanizing party within the TAC is, in light of the treatment they've meted out to other members of the TAC who simply wanted to remain Anglican and promote the Christian faith on that basis, a bit, well shall we say, over the top. Do I need to remind you how, for example, the TAC’s Romanizing bishops and clergy did their utmost to prevent or stifle any open or even fair discussion within the communion about the pros and cons of accepting “Anglicanorum Coetibus”? Have you been unaware of the Romanizers’ presumptuous, condescending assurance that those who did not want to convert could remain in the communion until they “discerned” the imperative of accepting Anglicanorum Coetibus (which reminded me, on the one hand, of the similar approach taken by PECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada with regard to women’s ordination back in the 70’s, and on the other hand of the Captain’s asseveration in “Cool Hand Luke”, “you gonna get your mind right”!)? And then there was the Romanizers’ indifference towards or even satisfaction with forcing the withdrawal of many members and even whole parishes who wanted simply to remain traditional Anglicans - the reason, after all, that they had joined the TAC in the first place. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
While I disagree with you profoundly, Mr. Reed, on the need to abandon Anglicanism and become a Roman Catholic in order to enjoy the fullness of the Christian faith, I wish you well and hope that you may indeed find fulfillment, peace, and joy through your conversion, whether with or without “Anglicanorum Coetibus”.
The irony being that those in the Church of England who have joined the ordinariate(less than 0.1 per cent of all active communicants), most never used the Cranmerian Prayer Book and unashamedly used the Roman rite.
As I point out in the US...most people who attend the Anglican Use are not even former Anglicans but cradle Roman Catholics.
Indeed read the Anglo-Catholic blog and you will see their desire to convert cradle Catholics to their Use.
By the way with TAC India and TAC South Africa rejecting the Ordinariate, I believe the number of potential TAC converts is now reduced to about 1,000. Although I am not too sure about the Torres Islanders.
No what Colin wrote is not high on Christian Charity and that in fact is the problem. I think he worded it quite perfectly.
What was asked for a Portsmouth and what was received from Rome were very different. From Romes perspective more generous than anyone thought. From an Anglican perspective nothing like what was sought.
It is like moving into a new neighborhood, and asking to join the neighborhood association. The reply comes back that not only can you do this, we will accept you as family. However first you have to admit that your family is not really a family just a group of people that live together as if they were a family. Then being told that until the paperwork is ready you should continue to live with your )now) fake family and even call the older generation mom & dad while remembering that they were never really your parents.
Now because of all this, there is an organizational quandary for the ACA. For whatever reason the HOB has decided that Rome is not the direction they need to currently journey. Yet they find themselves in a hierarchical group whose leader is Romeward bound. They realize that they can not go about the business of being Anglicans without leadership that is also engaged in being Anglican. This is all they have asked for.
The situation is made all the more difficult by Apb Hepworth's recent personal revelations, because the two will always be spoken of together and the HOB's motives will always be seen as suspect. It is a shame, because to do the right thing for all involved he must at least appear to loose face. That is a hard thing for any of us to do.
SWR asked:
Are you just upset that some ACA clergy have already received their notification from the Holy See as to their acceptance?
Of course not. I have always known that the ones would have qualified under the Pastoral Provisions, with or without Anglicanorum Ridiculous, had no impendimnet in their way.
The ineffable SWR writes:
"Clergy are already receiving their go-aheads from the CDF. Things are falling into place nicely."
"Are you just upset that some ACA clergy have already received their notification from the Holy See as to their acceptance? "
Since the blogs promulgated by Mr Reed's fellow Hepworthians are moaning and groaning over the lack of progress of their "Ordinariate," I find thse two assertions incredible. Exactly who are these ACA clergy and why is this positive development shrouded in secrecy? Does Mr Reed have information not vouchsafed to The Former Anglican, or to the English Catholic, or to Deborah Gyapong?
Does "moving along nicely" serve as a euphemism for "dead on arrival"?
Rev. Mr. Wells -
They Nulla Osta come from the CDF in Rome to the clergy. They are coming out pretty much one at a time.
Why you think that various blogs, rather than the CDF is a source of information, other than you are out of the loop as far as the communications from the CDF go.
If you will review what Cardinal Weurl said would happen in his address to the USCCB back in the Summer, you will find that exactly what he indicated has happened (or at least is happening) without you being in the loop.
Your ecclesial community is well noted for being against acceptance of Anglicanorum Coetibus, so why you would think you would be in the loop is beyond me.
I don't see any lack of progress or slow progress, given the specific report of the CDF's delegate.
SWR
AWR's attempt to refute Fr. Wells makes no sense. Fr. Wells never spoke of being "in the loop." The answer to this latest comment is exactly the one I gave yesterday: "[We] have always known that the ones would have qualified under the Pastoral Provisions, with or without Anglicanorum Ridiculous, had no impendimnet in their way."
Am I the only that is wondering why Mr. Reed appears to be obsessively fixated on this blog? Why on earth would he waste his time on this particular blog with his unceasing apologetic for the AC Tiber swimmers?
Is it because he thinks that he will somehow find more converts to Roman Catholicism on this blog? Maybe he thinks that we will all say, "Aha" and see the error of our ways if he makes one more snappy observation? Or, maybe, does he think that the RC church needs him to defend it? Or could he be embracing the Irish Catholic ethos and learning early that self-punishment is effective penance?
If it were me in his situation, I would simply shake the dust from my feet and move on to more fertile ground.
SWR: If you know of any Anglican priests outside of the UK who have been approved for an American Ordinariate, perhaps you will share thenm with us. Better still, share them with Deborah Gyapong and Anthony Chadwick, who have been lamenting the absence of progress and continued snubs to the TAC. I am puzzled by the contrast betwseen your attempt to appear upbeat and the plaintive cries of your fellow Hepworthians. Why not just enroll in a neighborhood RCIA and get it over with?
J.M.J.
Rev. Mr. Wells wrote:
"... If you know of any Anglican priests outside of the UK who have been approved for an American Ordinariate, perhaps you will share thenm with us. ..."
Yes I do, but no, I won't.
I will say that things are progressing on the timeline Cardinal Weurl indicated in his report to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, back in July.
SWR
Fr. Hart wrote:
"...Fr. Wells never spoke of being "in the loop." ..."
Fr. Wells had written:
"...Since the blogs promulgated by Mr Reed's fellow Hepworthians are moaning and groaning over the lack of progress of their "Ordinariate," I find thse two assertions incredible...."
It would seem that if he found this incredible, it was because he somehow doubted the information.
I am not sure what qualifies one to be a "Hepworthian," but since I have never met the Archbishop, and he played no role in our parishes decision process, I don't know that I would qualify.
SWR
Rev. Mr. Wells wrote:
"... I am puzzled by the contrast betwseen your attempt to appear upbeat and the plaintive cries of your fellow Hepworthians. Why not just enroll in a neighborhood RCIA and get it over with?..."
I am upbeat because I have found that nothing the CDF has done has failed to live up to what they promised. Personally, I don't have an issue with the timeline.
As to your question about the RCIA - first, I would not qualify for that program - I am already well aware of the process to follow should I become impatient.
Nevertheless, I am going to follow the process, together with the rest of our parish, for us as a group to enter full unity with the Successor of Peter.
SWR
Mr. Reed:
No one said the CDF was not following through. They are, and that is what has Hepworth and his followers so upset. The CDF did not fulfill Hepworth's dishonest version of the constitution.
How ironic that just as the whole world sees that Rome needs to get its house in order, a bunch of not quite Anglicans think Rome is Paradise.
J.M.J.
Fr. Hart wrote:
"...How ironic that just as the whole world sees that Rome needs to get its house in order, a bunch of not quite Anglicans think Rome is Paradise...."
No one of my acquaintance thinks Rome is Paradise.
The problems with the Roman Catholic Church, that have been manifested by egregious acts committed by some of its clergy in the past, are self evident.
The Roman Catholic Church's priests and bishops are ordinary men, a few of whom have sinned grievously.
What we do believe is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in #816 concerning the Institution.
It is for that reason, that we pray, together with Blessed John Henry Newman, for unity in the words of the prayer he composed:
O Lord Jesus Christ, who, when Thou wast about to suffer, didst pray for Thy disciples to the end of time that they might all be one, as Thou art in the Father, and the Father in Thee, look down in pity on the manifold divisions among those who profess Thy faith, and heal the many wounds which the pride of man and the craft of Satan have inflicted upon Thy people.
Break down the walls of separation which divide one party and denomination of Christians from another. Look with compassion on the souls who have been born in one or other of these various communions which not Thou, but man hath made. Set free the prisoners from these unauthorised forms of worship, and bring them all into that one communion which thou didst set up in the beginning, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Teach all men that the see of St. Peter, the Holy Church of Rome, is the foundation, centre, and instrument of unity. Open their hearts to the long-forgotten truth that our Holy Father, the Pope, is thy Vicar and Representative; and that in obeying Him in matters of religion, they are obeying Thee, so that as there is but one holy company in heaven above, so likewise there may be but one communion, confessing and glorifying Thy holy Name here below. Amen.
- from Meditations & Devotions.
SWR
"... re-arranging deck cahirs on the Titanic..."
Something suspiciously Islamic-sounding about that.
The idea of the papacy as the "the foundation, centre, and instrument of unity" is a historical absurdity. History shows the very opposite.
In spite of Mr. Reed's repeated efforts to convince us by parotting Roman advertising slogans, neither he nor anyone else has actually responded to Colin Chattan's elegantly-put analysis of the absurdity of proclaiming adherence to Roman doctrine while remaining in a quasi-Anglican body.
It is simply inexplicable that someone would say "I believe everything that Rome teaches" -- which is what submitting to the Ordinariate scheme requires -- when Rome teaches that ALL Anglican Orders, and therefore all Anglican Sacraments that depend on valid Orders, "are absolutely null and utterly void", and then, after conscientiously accepting that judgement, to continue to receive what Rome has declared to be pretended Sacraments from what Rome has determined are imposter clergy.
That some confused Irish or Italian bureaucrats buried in some Vatican dicastery, who are not cloaked in the teaching Office of the Church, have said (if they did say) "Stay where you are and keep doing what you have been doing" would be both pastorally irresponsible and completely irrelevant to the soteriological issue.
Yet no one from Mr. Reed's faction has ever bothered actually to address this manifest cognitive dissonance. That failure, all by itself, speaks volumes.
John A. Hollister+
To the extent that Rome's Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees with the faith and doctrine of the undivided Catholic Church of the first 1000 years it can be accepted. To the extent that it doesn't, e.g. vis-vis the pope's infallibility when he pronounces ex cathedra on faith and morals, along with all the other Roman innovations, the Roman Catechism has no more authority for Catholics than the Book of Mormon or Mad Magazine. While communion with the pope would certainly be desirable, it cannot be proved from scripture or the universal witness of the undivided Catholic Church that it is necessary for salvation or even catholicity; Christians holding to the traditional Anglican faith are already fully Catholic, as are the eastern Orthodox. Full unity could be restored to the Catholic Church if the pope and his followers would simply renounce their uncatholic beliefs and practices - or at least not insist that others accept them. Certainly we traditional Anglicans are more than ready to comply with our Lord's high priestly prayer: we already allow confirmed Roman Catholics to receive communion at our altars without being even conditionally re-confirmed. The main obstacle to the unity of the Catholic Church is posed by Rome.
Sean,
I was thinking that you are in an (former?) Episcopal parish. Is your parish really ACA? I might have misunderstood you, can you clarify?
Is "loose face" the same guy as Jumble Face Jake? Just kidding!
Fr. John wrote:
"...I was thinking that you are in an (former?) Episcopal parish. Is your parish really ACA? I might have misunderstood you, can you clarify?..."
From 1869 - 2007 our parish was part of TEC.
In 2007 we left TEC and became part of the ACA - not that we sought being part of the Continuing Church per se, but because we were aware of the work that had gone on for some time between the TAC and Rome.
When we spoke with the local Chancery Office, while setting up a Pastoral Provision parish was certainly an option, we were told by them that if we could wait a couple of years, a better canonical option was on the way.
We were transferred to the Patrimony of the Primate from the ACA Diocese of the Missouri Valley by Bishop Strawn in the later part of last year. The Patrimony is basically a "holding pen" for those moving to the Ordinariate. This gets us problem children out of the ACA Dioceses so they can go about determining their future mission/ministry.
TEC filed litigation against us in December 2008, and we are currently on a Scheduling Order to be ready for trial this December 15th.
SWR
Gee, what can I say? Settle. You won't need the property anyway if your plans work out - since it would eventually be taken in a settlement of another kind.
Fr. Hart -
The property issue is one you have been off base on from the beginning. You continue to insist that all property will be owned by the Ordinariate.
The CDF has been quite clear, that the policy on the ownership of property will be determined by each ordinariate. It is speculation to make definitive statements concerning Church Property in the Ordinariate before a particular Ordinariate has been canonically erected.
Even if a particular Ordinariate were to decide to hold property in a central fashion, which is not terribly likely given where most members of the Ordinariate will be coming from, if a parish currently leases property, there will be no requirement to go buy some so that it can be transferred. The parish will continue to lease that property.
Our property has been owned by the same Corporation since it was purchased in 1915, with some very specific requirements in our bylaws concerning the ownership of our property.
SWR
...ownership of property will be determined by each ordinariate.
Gee, ...how very reassuring.
I have said and written many times before that those who leave TEC for Rome are jumping out of the Episcopal frying pan into the Roman Catholic fire. Scenes from the leftist take over of TEC are being reenacted on a daily basis in the American branch (there's that word again) of the Roman Church. I won't bother with an encore or update of the myriad abuses, heresies, blasphemies, sacrileges, and assorted left wing skulduggery that Roman bishops, priests and religious are committing. One can read it for ones self in the many Roman Catholic blogs and You Tube videos that catalog these sorts of things. If you want to learn (how could one not already be aware!) about these things watch a few episodes of "The Vortex" on You Tube.
If you are in the American franchise of the Roman Church, you are truly in the belly of the beast. May God have mercy on you.
Ah no, it's not the left wing of the Roman church that one should be most wary.
Some of the loudest so-called 'conservatives' (fans of Tridentine Masses who sign their emails with Latin phrases) have been the ones committing abuse and found with child porn on their computers.
A Latin Mass won't heal Rome and clean out its huge store of fey clergy anyway. Only repentance, transparency and accountability will and an understanding of the redemptive process in the human soul - that requires a broken and contrite heart.
These things will be necessary in ALL camps for true unity to occur in Christ's Church.
Orthodoxy has also been a study in entrenched, rigid, prideful leaders.
Ironically Orthodoxy's most treasured Ikon, Rublev's Trinity, actually illustrates the much maligned Filioque. Read John 14:15-27, John 15:26, John 16:7.
Then read the Ikon, remembering that it reads from right to left and then read Acts 2:33; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 1:13; Hebrews 8:1.
Then you can see both the Trinity and the Filioque being brought to life.
Rublev fasted and prayed for extended period before writing this ikon.
The Lord was obviously with him as he worked. This Ikon clearly illustrates the One-ness, the single-mind and spiritual unity of the Trinity as well as the work of GOD in saving and sanctifying the world. The scene could also be a send-off for Jesus as He prepared to come to earth as its and our Savior.
J.M.J.
Fr. John wrote:
"...If you are in the American franchise of the Roman Church, ..."
We are not talking about the Pastoral Provision, but the Ordinariate which is not part of the existing canonical structure, but will be a new structure.
SWR
Sean,
God bless you. I have read the pastoral provision pretty carefully. It says plainly that those parishes that comprise the ordinariate must "participate fully" in the life of the (Roman)diocese where they are geographically located. I don't suppose you have any idea what that might entail for you. When you look at what some of these diocesan organizations are up to, well,it ain't pretty. But your parish will be required to participate. Maybe your church will become a sanctuary church for illegal aliens, or participate in a "non-political way" for the rights of government employees unions. Or maybe take part in a vigil against the death penalty. I think you get the idea.
There are many other similarly disturbing passages in the A.C., but they have been discussed to death on this blog already.
I do sincerely hope the Roman thing works out for you and your parish, but the reality of the situation tells me otherwise.
SWR,
Ask the betrayed Catholic parents of the Dioceses of Kansas who today announced they are bringing a lawsuit for breach of contract and violation of child safety agreements by the Diocese how they feel.
Ask the parents of the Diocese of Philadelphia (read the Philidelphia Grand Jury Report if you dare) and a number of other RC Dioceses around the globe - ask how well they have been treated by the leaders of the RC.
Check out www.Catholics4Change.com
and
www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker
and
the blogs of Eric Giunta, a Catholic law student who helped document the homosexual goings on in the Miami Diocese: http://lexetlibertas.wordpress.com;http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/giunta
Take a good hard look at the dark side of life in Roman Catholicism where parishoners have little power, choice or voice.
Then, of course, there is the experience of Archbishop Hepworth as a young man.
Then if all that doesn't give you cold chills, Google the names Maciel, Favalora, Groer and Lahey.
Look up Gordon MacRae, who is in prison for abuse of a number of children, on the www.bishop-accountability.org website. Read his file - especially Sections I and II and pps 150-152, keeping in mind that even Dr. William Donohue and the Catholic League remain in denial about him.
Read about abuse in Ireland. Read about the abuse of Eskimo children. Read about the children of Australia. Africa. Belgium.
Anonymous,
Yes, as Jesus said, "By their fruits shall ye know them." In all fairness to the Roman Catholic Church, however, the reality has to be kept in mind that the plague of paedophilia afflicts all human institutions - including all the other Churches. I haven't come across any convincing stats that the Roman Church is any worse in this regard than any other (I have just seen a horrifying, sickening documentary about sexual abuse of children - which crippled them, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually for the rest of their lives - the stench of Satan is strongest and Hell most visible where innocence is corrupted - by masters in an English prep school where, I imagine, the main religion promoted, to the extent that any religion was promoted, was that of the Church of England). The most damnable aspect of the Romans' comportment in this area was their general cover-up of the abuse and reassignment of priests they knew were corrupt. Such criminal recklessness and stupidity were certainly concordant with the spiritual and moral chaos and confusion that followed Vatican II (Rome's great self-inflicted wound; will she ever recover from it?), but in my view they set Rome apart for exceptional condemnation only when the RC's adopt a "holier than thou" attitude in consequence of their claim to be the One True Church. On the other hand they can, right in the heart of their sex abuse scandals, make the perverse argument (it certainly doesn't convince me - but it has to be reckoned with) adduced by Abraham the Jew in Boccaccio's Decameron for his own conversion: the Roman Church is so corrupt that it can only survive and thrive if the Holy Spirit is somehow present within it.
Mr. Chattan, Your words bear repeating:
"The stench of Satan is strongest and Hell most visible where innocence is corrupted."
Verily, verily you have hit dead center of the bullseye.
Doesn't say much for the discernment skills, the formation process or the spiritual supervision and direction of the Churches that employ the abusers, does it? And you are right, the cover-up is a doubly evil offense, especially when these men are shipped off to unsuspecting parishes to offend and destroy innocent children over and over again.
Speaking of standards of conduct...a New Zealand(Canterbury Communion) Anglican homosexual and former priest was convicted of fraud, http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5742012/Ex-Chch-priest-jailed-for-660k-AUT-fraud
Fr. John wrote:
"... I have read the pastoral provision pretty carefully. It says plainly that those parishes that comprise the ordinariate must "participate fully" in the life of the (Roman)diocese where they are geographically located..."
Father -
You keep mentioning the Pastoral Provision - we are talking about Anglicanorum Coetibus. They are not the same.
You have used quotation marks around a phrase that does not occur in either the Apostolic Constitution or the Complimentary Norms.
You allegation of being forced into participation is simply not only unfounded, but is also clearly contrary to the understanding of the USCCB as the local Archbishop made quite clear when we met with them in a visit to our parish.
The local Archbishop was quite clear in not only in his solid support and welcome to our parish, but also in the recognition that we are not under his jurisdiction, but he wishes to help our transition into the Roman Catholic Family in any way he can.
The spirit of Anglicanorum Coetibus is well represented in this section:
"§ 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."
SWR
...the presbyterate of the Diocese in which they exercise their ministry...
SWR, have you considered those words yourself?
Post a Comment