tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post6211782588581929935..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Open Letter to the TAC from the ACCFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19243906893281938532007-10-27T00:39:00.000-04:002007-10-27T00:39:00.000-04:00I've tried to understand the jist of this blog, bu...I've tried to understand the jist of this blog, but I keep getting confused by the same things which have confused me for 30 years, since I left the old PECUSA. Since then, I've seen so many splinters of the "continuing Anglican movement" and never quite understood what the differences were, they seemed so illogical. I'm sure that some people saw the logic. But in an age when the Apostolic Succession could be proved so easily, why is that still a reason for disunity?<BR/><BR/>Many Episcopalians stayed in their church to try to effect change from within. The result is obvious. Staying within did nothing to change the heresy of that church. But splintering has had it's problems as well. Today we see the stiffness of communication between the ADD and the TAC. One must wonder why the TAC cannot list its objections to ACC policy or whatever; personally, I've had my own questions of the TAC sidestepped. I wonder what is the true reason for silence? Invasion is one thing, but continued silence by bonafide parties carries a slight smell which isn't very attractive.<BR/><BR/>There are basic differences between Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Roman Catholics. It is my opinion that a person who is a member of one, based on spiritual and historical understanding, cannot be a member of either of the others. Why?<BR/><BR/>Apostolic Succession: male in character. But why so many Bishops in the splinter movements? Is membership in one splinter to be achieved with the goal in mind of advancing from priest to bishop? <BR/>Early church teachings versus modern understanding by man.<BR/><BR/>Liturgies: Changing the wording invites change in meaning, to wit: "by the Holy Ghost" is not the same thing as "by the power of the Holy Spirit". Changing liturgy wording is like changing the basic membership requirements so you can accomodate more people who don't believe just as you do ("dumbing down"). If one cannot accept the Incarnation as God the Father taking human form, in the manner related by the Bible, then one cannot believe that Jesus Christ is one's Savior (unless one decides that the First Commandment really isn't serious). If one can't believe in the Virgin Birth, one has no business telling anyone that he is a Christian. And one has no business working within an Anglican church, unless one is working to become a true Christian!<BR/><BR/>Human Sexuality: While it's not precisely clear, the jist of biblical teaching is concerned mainly with males, and that jist is clear that men shouldn't do the things we call "homosexual". If the early church fathers considered it an abomination, who are today's men to have better understanding, except through arguments of Man? Besides, if one examines the earliest ordinations of females to the priesthood, and then checks into their sexual orientation, how many will prove to be lesbian? With clergy of that persuasion, is it any wonder that the door to homosexuality has been flung so far open? We cannot question a person's confessions to Almighty God, and the steps he must take toward forgiveness. We must accept him as forgiven if he has passed what tests are required of him to be a priest. If he indeed is homosexual and cannot change that; and if he has obtained his forgiveness and is not a "practicing homosexual", then he may well be acceptible as a candidate for holy orders. However, if he still practices non-celibacy, and worse, if he promotes it, then he has lied to his god from the beginning. And if 'he' is 'she', it's the same thing...<BR/><BR/>And if any member, if any splinter, feels that it is acceptible to be in sacramental communion with any other body which accepts these violations of the early church, then they have a problem with the True Church, and so do we! We have a problem with them!<BR/><BR/>I don't really know what the true answer is, because since Man is in charge of all these groups - splinters, branches, orthodox, traditional, Eastern and Western - things aren't likely to change in our lifetimes. So I look to one which is the least troublesome of them all.<BR/><BR/>One fine priest in my experience once told me that he searched through all of the "religions" and settled on the Anglican one, because it had more answers for him. Then, he had to leave the Episcopal Church because of the changes in theology. He often said that the Episcopal Church was the thinking man's church. And well-said that was! <BR/><BR/>Now most of the thinkers have already left TEC, and the trouble today is with those who continue to accept female clergy while not accepting practicing homosexual clergy. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I cannot convert to Roman Catholocism or to Anglicans who cavort with Lambeth, nor can I convert to any of the (Eastern) Orthodox branches (and certainly not to Islam). I can pray to my Heavenly Father and our Savior just as easily in my back yard as I can in a church building. But I find that I won't! So I stay with my church and try to figure out why we fight and argue so, why there are so many other "Christian" groups, and (more importantly) why the Anglican church cannot grow as much as some of these modern "mega-churches". I just don't know!<BR/><BR/>But I am tired of all the arguing and refusing to communicate, to answer legitimate questions.<BR/><BR/>BHpkBHpkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17075195475048078642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38357329144598382912007-09-07T12:06:00.000-04:002007-09-07T12:06:00.000-04:00I wish to state at the outset that I do not presum...I wish to state at the outset that I do not presume to speak for anyone but myself, although I am a priest of the ACA/TAC.<BR/><BR/>I did some digging about Deerfield Beach (please suppress the groans, there you at the back) and discovered on page 5 of the July 1991 issue of the <I>Trinitarian</I>, the official newspaper of the ACC, a page titled "Debate Over Unity."<BR/><BR/>There is quite a bit of unpleasant reading there, but in the centre are two call-out boxes, one labelled "The Indianapolis Resolution" and the other "The Archbishop's Resolution." I will duplicate them here.<BR/><BR/>BEGIN QUOTE<BR/><BR/><B>THE INDIANAPOLIS RESOLUTION</B><BR/><I>The following resolution was endorsed by 10 Anglican Catholic bishops at a meeting April 24-25 in Indianapolis, Ind., for consideration by diocesan synods:</I><BR/><BR/>WHEREAS it is the express will of Our Saviour that His Church should be one, and<BR/>WHEREAS the Anglican Catholic Church has maintained stability in Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship and traditional morality as mandated in THE AFFIRMATION OF ST. LOUIS and has welcomed parishes, clergy and laity from kindred groups and <BR/>WHEREAS the Anglican Catholic Church has provided the means to achieve unity with entitities larger than parishes under its Title III, Canon 8, now therefore be it<BR/>RESOLVED that the ___th Diocesan Synod of the Diocese of ___ does hereby memorialize the IX Provincial Synod of its urgent desire for full unity among all those who hold in common the essentials of Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship and traditional morality in their Anglican expression as set forth in THE AFFIRMATION OF ST. LOUIS (in its entirety), and as may be established under the Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church.<BR/><B>Approved by</B> the synods of the Diocese of the Holy Trinity, the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States, the Diocese of the Midwest, the Diocese of the Pacific Southwest, the Diocese of the Resurrection, the Diocese of the South and the Missionary Diocese of New Orleans. (South and New Orleans amended the resolution to delete the third paragraph with its explicit reference to Title III, Canon 8.)<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>THE ARCHBISHOP'S RESOLUTION</B><BR/><I>The following resolution was sent by the Most Rev. Louis W. Falk to selected persons for presentation to their diocesan synods: </I><BR/><BR/>WHEREAS it is the express will of Our Saviour that His Church should be one, and this divine imperative supersedes all lesser obligations, whether administrative, canonical or institutional, and <BR/>WHEREAS lack of visible and organic unity among Christians is justified by, and only by, genuine differences with regard to the essentials of Christian Faith, Order and Morals, and<BR/>WHEREAS in the official formularies of (at least) the Anglican Catholic Church and the American Episcopal Church it is impossible on a fair reading to discover any genuine differences with regard to these Christian essentials in their Anglican expression,<BR/>THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the ___th Diocesan Synod of the Diocese of ___ does hereby express its urgent desire for full unity among all Continuing Anglicans who hold in common the essentials of Catholic Faith, Order and Morals in their Anglican expression, and likewise its firm resolve to participate in such action.<BR/><BR/><B>Approved by</B> the synods of the Diocese of the Missouri Valley, the Diocese of the South and the Missionary Diocese of New England. (South amended the resolution to delete the entire third paragraph with its reference to the American Episcopal Church. The Rt. Rev. William O. Lewis, Bishop Ordinary, qualified his assent by stating that the resolution must be seen in the context of the bishops' canonical oaths and the Constitution and Canons of the ACC.)<BR/><BR/>END QUOTE<BR/><BR/>I believe that here we see in July of 1991 the difference that still obtains in September of 2007. The portion of the ACC that backed out of the unity process and now constitutes the ACC(OP) seems to say (please correct me if this is a misreading) "unity is important, but not as important as our canons--if you want unity, come join us." On the contrary, the portion of the ACC that followed through with the unity process and now together with the former AEC constitutes the ACA, all together with the TAC (all of whom came together in the unity process), say "unity is important and supersedes all lesser obligations, whether administrative, canonical, or institutional."<BR/><BR/>In fact, I would say that with regard to relationships with FiF/NA, FiF/Australia, FiF/UK, and of course the Holy See, the TAC position is still the same: <B>that unity is of utmost importance, as our Lord said, and that lack of visible and organic unity among Christians is justified by, and only by, genuine differences with regard to the essentials of Christian Faith, Order and Morals.</B><BR/><BR/>I stand ready to be corrected by my betters if I am in error.Fr Richard Sutterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13783827206966921462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22449897291297339312007-09-05T15:02:00.000-04:002007-09-05T15:02:00.000-04:00(The consecration of +Moyer was done by FiF, altho...(The consecration of +Moyer was done by FiF, although I believe he has moved into the ACA since then.)<BR/><BR/>The ACC has laid out its position, but the wider Continuum has not. The APCK has clergy licensed to function within it who are priests in the Episcopal Church at the same time (this I know for a fact). This is still going on. But, the ACC is in full communion with the APCK. So, to an outside observer, the ACC is in obvious communion with the revisionists. <BR/><BR/>It seems that what the ACC is saying is that it applies this rule absolutely, but selectively.<BR/><BR/>How far do we take this? To be in communion with members of the <I>Canterbury</I> Anglican Communion is deemed by the ACC as being in communion with the revisionists, even though these same people in something like the C of E, the Australian Anglican Church, or the Episcopal Church, have the same objections to the same heresies. They seek "alternative oversight" because they wish not to be in communion with or subject to a heretical bishop. Actually, if that is possible there is good precedent for them to believe it is enough to set them free from the stain of evil association. <BR/><BR/>Since the only document that all of the CCs have agreed upon is the Affirmation of St, Louis, and since there exists variations among the CCs, and even among the "circle of three," we have here a case of undefined and unwritten rules.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-37544871423557275442007-09-05T08:27:00.000-04:002007-09-05T08:27:00.000-04:00I've been able to find nothing in a websearch abou...I've been able to find nothing in a websearch about how the ACA/TAC views its "relationship" with the other Anglican bodies in FACA. Perhaps I've missed something... but, if not:<BR/><BR/>It's clear from FACA's articles that any member organization may "opt out" of any portion of the organization, and so that by its membership the TAC/ACA isn't actually obligated to anything by its membership, which may well thus simply be a gesture of fellowhip.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, the fact is that the very first goal of the group (admittedly one of five) is:<BR/>---<BR/>Furthering mutual understanding of its member Provinces, Jurisdictions and Ministries <I>with a view to eventual union</I> when and if deemed practical...<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Given this context - and the confusion it clearly generates even for some members of the ACA/TAC, not to mention fellow anglocatholic churches - surely it wouldn't be inappropriate for the TAC to make a clearer explanation of its understanding of FACA, rather than leaving the issue to be a matter of speculation and misinterpretation?<BR/><BR/><BR/>As to <I>communio in sacris</I> (esp. orders and Eucharist) with the Lambeth Communion, I'm afraid -- at least (again) from what I"ve been able to discover as an "observer" -- that the ACC is right on the money on this one.<BR/><BR/>The following two links are from the TAC's official magazine, _The Messenger_, and according to them, the TAC remains in full communion with parts of the Lambeth Communion (which, in turn, is in communion with the rest of it either directly or transitively):<BR/><BR/>http://www.themessenger.com.au/MessengerPDFs/FiFAResponse%20to%20Carnley.pdf<BR/><BR/>http://www.themessenger.com.au/news01_02%202005.htm<BR/><BR/>Now, these statements may be dated (being from about 2 years ago), but they are the most recent explicit statements I could find, after a fair bit of searching, on the issues.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In this context I think the "burden of proof" now lies on the TAC to show that -- despite these clear statements to the contrary as recent as 2 years ago (and which described <I>communio in sacris</I> with the Lambeth Communion as a reality from the very start of the TAC) -- this is no longer the case.<BR/><BR/>I think the ACC's questions on this matter are quite legitimate and well-founded, and reflect not some arbitrary paranoia on its part but rather a reasoned reaction to the TAC's own explicit statements, actions and policies.<BR/><BR/><BR/>pax,<BR/>LP<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Some excerpts from the links above:<BR/><BR/>Forward in Fatih's statement<BR/>---<BR/>INTERCOMMUNION AND INTERCHANGEABILITY OF MINISTRIES ARE, IN FACT,<BR/>REALITIES THAT HAVE EXISTED IN THIS COUNTRY BETWEEN THE ANGLICAN<BR/>CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA (“ACCA”) AND OTHER AUSTRALIAN<BR/>ANGLICANS GOING BACK TO THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE ACCA IN 1987<BR/>WHEN BISHOP JOHN HAZLEWOOD RECEIVED ARCHBISHOP LOUIS FALK OF<BR/>THE USA PUBLICLY AND LITURGICALLY “AS A BISHOP IN FULL COMMUNION<BR/>WITH THE BISHOP OF BALLARAT”. THIS COMMUNION RELATIONSHIP WAS<BR/>PUBLICLY EXPRESSED IN ARCHBISHOP FALK’S CONCELEBRATING THE<BR/>EUCHARIST IN THE DIOCESE OF BALLARAT AT THAT TIME AND EVEN IN A<BR/>CONCORDAT ISSUED UNDER BISHOP HAZLEWOOD’S SEAL.... FURTHERMORE, THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF<BR/>AUSTRALIA IN MANY PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WHO CONTINUE TO EXPRESS<BR/>ACTUAL INTERCOMMUNION AND INTERCHANGEABILITY OF MINISTRY WITH THE<BR/>ACCA (AND VICE VERSA).<BR/>---<BR/><BR/><BR/>Abp. Hepworth's statement (showing <I>communio in sacris</I> of both orders and Eucharist between the TAC, Forward in Faith, and the Australian Anglican church):<BR/>---<BR/>Bishop Chislett will remain parish priest of All Saints in Brisbane. He will serve as Assistant Bishop to our Australian church, with a particular focus on Northern Australia. He will also be the bishop to that special ministry to Traditional Anglicans in this country being negotiated by Forward in Faith and us with the bishops of the Anglican Church of Australia.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/><BR/>Letter from the bishop of Murray (a diocese in the Australian Anglican church) detailing his participation, together with both Lambeth Communion and TAC bishops, in the ordination of these "dual citizenship" clergy:<BR/>---<BR/>I will be participating in this Consecration with other diocesans and also with retired bishops of the Anglican Communion alongside Archbishop Hepworth and bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion. My actions, which I am advised do not contravene the Constitution or Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia are undertaken to ensure that the Consecration is seen as having credibility in the Anglican Communion and as my public statement that it is essential that we have alternative Episcopal oversight.<BR/>---<BR/>These ordinations, (including that of then-Fr. Moyer along with the 2 Australian priests), were done in the U.S. and (at least according to what I've heard) used the order of service from the American 1979 BCP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-5687934600213495382007-09-05T00:11:00.000-04:002007-09-05T00:11:00.000-04:00-- The TAC/ACA appears to hold itself out as being...<I>-- The TAC/ACA appears to hold itself out as being in communion with at least one, and very possibly two, Dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia...</I><BR/><BR/>The Anglican Church in Australia, like the Episcopal Church in the United States, has dissenting diocesan bishops. The parallel is to Bp. Jack Iker (and no, he does not "ordain" women), or Bp. Keith Ackerman. <BR/><BR/><I>-- Two of the TAC/ACA's most recent consecrations of bishops took place (according to witnesses, using the Ordinal of the 1979 "Prayer Book" and with the assistance of accolettes) with the participation of one or more Bishops of the Ang. Ch. Aust....</I><BR/><BR/>Again, would not these be dissenting bishops? And, what '79 book? If that was in Australia, then I assume it refers to an Australian book from the same year as the unfortunate American book.<BR/><BR/><I>-- The men so consecrated were immediately appointed to official posts within at least one Diocese of the Ang. Ch. Aust.</I><BR/><BR/>By whom? Was this part of the plan? <BR/><BR/><I>So to an outsider, it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the TAC/ACA is "in communio in sacris" with the revisionists.</I><BR/><BR/>This outsider can come to no such conclusion. Who are the sources? Who are the C of A bishops in this story? <BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, my comment was intended to clarify the situation between the TAC-ACA and such groups as the FACA. A comment implied that this was full communion, and I know for a fact that such an allegation is completely unfounded.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21034493882681800612007-09-04T23:21:00.000-04:002007-09-04T23:21:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart said, "An innocent association and willin...Fr. Hart said, "An innocent association and willingness to communicate should not be mis-characterized as a state of communio in sacris. It is nothing more than an open door for discussion; that is all. The TAC/ACA is not in communion with churches that 'ordain' women, etc."<BR/><BR/>I have no doubt whatever that Fr. Hart made this statement in good faith. However, it appears to be at odds with certain facts:<BR/><BR/>-- The TAC/ACA appears to hold itself out as being in communion with at least one, and very possibly two, Dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia;<BR/><BR/>-- The Ang. Ch. Aust., in many of its Dioceses, "ordains" women and moreover is in communion with Canterbury, which likewise "ordains" women;<BR/><BR/>-- Canterbury is in communion with each and every provice of the Lambeth Communion that "ordains" women, including PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC;<BR/><BR/>-- Two of the TAC/ACA's most recent consecrations of bishops took place (according to witnesses, using the Ordinal of the 1979 "Prayer Book" and with the assistance of accolettes) with the participation of one or more Bishops of the Ang. Ch. Aust. and<BR/><BR/>-- The men so consecrated were immediately appointed to official posts within at least one Diocese of the Ang. Ch. Aust.<BR/><BR/>So to an outsider, it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the TAC/ACA is "in communio in sacris" with the revisionists.<BR/><BR/>As Abp. Haverland pointed out in his letter to Abp. Hepworth, it would be most desirable to have some official clarification regarding these concerns.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-8919045495899003032007-09-03T00:03:00.000-04:002007-09-03T00:03:00.000-04:00D. Straw:I appreciate Archbishop Haverland's willi...D. Straw:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate Archbishop Haverland's willingness to have his statements posted on our blog, and wish others would do the same (++Provence, ++Hepworth...). In all fairness, among the major jurisdictions I tend to lean on the TAC-ACA side.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67929399506689812862007-09-02T23:21:00.000-04:002007-09-02T23:21:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart:I will give the ACA one thing. I think it...Fr. Hart:<BR/><BR/>I will give the ACA one thing. I think it is a little unfair to make such a big deal about the D.B. incident and the validity of your orders. I hear where the ACC is coming from I just don't think it's as concerning as the other issues...Plus, things like this can always be worked out. <BR/><BR/>As the parent of two young children I pray for a united and strong Continuum. One where the ACC, ACA, UEC, and the APCK can truly be one. Let's face it... the ACA does have much more in common with these bodies than they do with AMiA... or even Rome for that matter. <BR/><BR/><BR/>D. Straw Evansville, INAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40804219620957409352007-09-01T16:01:00.000-04:002007-09-01T16:01:00.000-04:00How do we hope to guide pre-Catholic Anglicans hom...How do we hope to guide pre-Catholic Anglicans home (those who need to become truly Catholic) if we treat them as lepers who are to be outside the camp? An innocent association and willingness to communicate should not be mis-characterized as a state of <I>communio in sacris</I>. It is nothing more than an open door for discussion; that is all. The TAC/ACA is not in communion with churches that "ordain" women, etc. Their willingness to keep a door of discussion open is, in a purely Catholic sense, evangelistic.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69760366911772655212007-09-01T15:26:00.000-04:002007-09-01T15:26:00.000-04:00LP said "Is the ACA going to be an Anglo-Catholic ...LP said "Is the ACA going to be an Anglo-Catholic body in the continuing Church tradition, or is it seeking to be a "high church" affiliate of the angloprotestant AMiA." This is a good question and it deserves an answer. <BR/><BR/>TEc has tried to be all things to all people and look where that has gotten them. As I have said before on this blog...Anglicanism is headed for three denominations. The remnants of the Unitarians in vestments led by KJS and Williams. The mega-church wannabes led by AMiA Chuck Murphy and CANA Minns types...and finally a true Catholic and Traditional church. The ACA is quickly finding themselves with a foot in all three camps. They are a member of FACA, have dually ordained clergy in communion with the ABC and KJS, and they are also complaining about how they are treated by the ACC, APCK, and UEC...The problem is that it's hard enough to straddle two camps...let alone three. <BR/><BR/>D. Straw Evansville, INAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65898691377476290512007-09-01T11:38:00.000-04:002007-09-01T11:38:00.000-04:00---------------------------------EDITORS -- Pls. p...---------------------------------<BR/>EDITORS -- Pls. post this version instead... I clicked the wrong thing and submitted the previewed draft not the edited version<BR/>----------------------------------<BR/><BR/><BR/>My sense of the ACA (which may or may not be fully accurate) is that for a while they've intentionally cultivated a certain "ambiguity" in an effort to be more appealing to more people.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The problem with that approach, IMHO, is that what is needed now is clarity and an unambiguous stand, not obfuscation or non-commital fuzziness.<BR/><BR/>And, frankly, nothing is served by such ambiguity save to generate more confusion. These issues have to be clarified sometime... and putting off such clarification doesn't, in the long run, attract or retain more members -- rather, it merely serves to build on sand and set the stage for disillusionments and divisions down the road when the issues _are_ finally clarified (as they ultimately must be if there's to be any coherent future).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, if you look at the FACA terms, you'll see that everything is left up to the choices/policies of each affiliated organization... there's nothing mandated of them. So the ACA could well simply see their involvement as a matter of fellowship -- not sacramental or even theological identity -- by opting out of clergy transfer, sacramental unity, shared theological education, etc.<BR/><BR/>But this raises the question: if the ACA's membership is merely for fellowship, and the ACA "opts out" of most of the practicalities for the sake of being genuinely anglocatholic, then what's the point of being within an association the whole purpose of which is to move toward closer jurisdictional cordination and unity? And if it's for more than that, one has to ask how the ACA can be "catholic" when sharing sacraments and theology with such protestant (even, in some cases, anti-catholic) groups?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Likewise, their position vis a vis Rome. On the one hand there appears to be an express desire, at least in some quarters, to unite. Yet most signs seem to be that this would be something that wouldn't be considered at all seriously by Rome for many generations, if at all.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, plenty of other anglocatholics -- who view Roman claims to supremacy (rather than primacy) and infallibility as un-Biblical un-patristic revisionism -- are alienated from the ACA because of this (perhaps mistakenly) perceived desire to sacrifice a genuine Anglican identity for the sake of becoming a small (and perhaps unsustainable) pocket of ideosyncratic Romans.<BR/><BR/><BR/>My sense is that one of the ACC's challenges (and an appropriate challenge) to the ACA & TAC is asking them to take a stand one way or the other.<BR/><BR/>Is the ACA going to be an anglocatholic body in the continuing Church tradition, or is it seeking to be a "high church" affiliate of the angloprotestant AMiA and Global South?<BR/><BR/><BR/>It can't be both... and I think the ACC is right to suggest that the time for a studied ambiguity or hedging of bets is over.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, it may well be that the ACA _does_ have firm and unambiguous answers to these questions of identity and policy, and that the confusion many observers (even fellow "continuing churchmen") is a matter of perception, rather than fact.<BR/><BR/>But, should that be the case, it ought to be simple enough for the ACA to make a few clear statements to solve those problems of perception -- which (or so it seems to me) are sufficiently wide-spread as to require the ACA's/TAC's attention.<BR/><BR/><BR/>pax,<BR/>LPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80175084556317784532007-09-01T11:33:00.000-04:002007-09-01T11:33:00.000-04:00My sense of the ACA (which may or may not be fully...My sense of the ACA (which may or may not be fully accurate) is that for a while they've intentionally cultivated a certain "ambiguity" in an effort to be more appealing to more people.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The problem with that approach, IMHO, is that what is needed now is clarity and an unambiguous stand, not obfuscation or non-commital fuzziness.<BR/><BR/>And, frankly, nothing is served by such ambiguity save to generate more confusion. These issues have to be clarified sometime... and putting off such clarification merely serves to build on sand -- in the long run it doesn't attract or keep more people as it sets the stage for disillusionments and divisions down the road, when the issues _are_ finally clarified.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, if you look at the FACA terms, you'll see that everything is left up to the choices/policies of each affiliated organization... there's nothing mandated of them. So the ACA could well simply see their involvement as a matter of fellowship -- not sacramental or even theological identity -- by opting out of clergy transfer, sacramental unity, shared theological education, etc.<BR/><BR/>But this does raise the question: if membership is merely for fellowship, and the ACA "opts out" of most of the practicalities for the sake of being genuinely anglocatholic, then what's the point of being within an association the whole purpose of which is to move toward closer jurisdictional cordination and unity? And if it's for more than that, how can the ACA be "catholic" when sharing sacraments and theology with such protestant (even, in some cases, anti-catholic) groups?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Likewise, their position vis a vis Rome. On the one hand there appears to be an express desire, at least in some quarters, to unite. On the other hand, most signs seem to be that this would be something that wouldn't be considered at all seriously by Rome for many generations, if at all.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, plenty of other anglocatholics -- who view Roman claims to supremacy (rather than primacy) and infallibility as un-Biblical un-patristic revisionism -- are alienated from the ACA because of this (perhaps mistakenly) perceived desire to sacrifice a genuine Anglican identity for the sake of becoming a small (and perhaps unsustainable) pocket of ideosyncratic Romans.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>My sense is that one of the ACC's challenges to the ACA & TAC in its letters (and an appropriate challenge) is to ask them to take a stand one way or the other. Is the ACA going to be an anglocatholic body in the continuing Church tradition, or is it seeking to be a "high church" affiliate of the angloprotestant AMiA.<BR/><BR/><BR/>It can't be both... and I think the ACC is right to suggest that the time for a studied ambiguity or hedging of bets is over.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, it may well be that the ACA does have firm and unambiguous answers to these questions, and that the confusion many observers (even fellow "continuing churchmen") is a matter of perception, rather than fact.<BR/><BR/>But, should that be the case, it ought to be simple enough for the ACA to make a few clear statements to solve those problems of perception -- which (or so it seems to me) are sufficiently wide-spread as to require the ACA's/TAC's attention.<BR/><BR/><BR/>pax,<BR/>LPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11249984803785687682007-09-01T10:09:00.000-04:002007-09-01T10:09:00.000-04:00From someone in the UEC looking into the ACA it se...From someone in the UEC looking into the ACA it seems a little strange that the ACA is strongly seeking unity with http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm<BR/><BR/>and can sign a FACA agreement with <BR/><BR/>http://www.cambridgechurch.org/app/<BR/><BR/>I agree with Fr. Hart. any unity is likely incomplete without the ACA. However, the ACA needs to make some decisions about what it really wants.<BR/><BR/>David Straw Evansville, INAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-14742839693722217472007-08-31T13:49:00.000-04:002007-08-31T13:49:00.000-04:00Nor was there input into them from Anglicans outsi...<I>Nor was there input into them from Anglicans outside the U.S. and Canada since the ordination of women hadn’t yet spread beyond North America.</I><BR/><BR/>A small detail: The "ordination" of women did not even begin in North America. Rather, it spread to North America. It is true, however, that in the U.S. and Canada it made its biggest splash.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73995624476824504822007-08-30T22:06:00.000-04:002007-08-30T22:06:00.000-04:00The attempt to establish a worldwide Church body, ...The attempt to establish a worldwide Church body, and the use of a new Constitution and Canons as the mechanism for doing so, was a point of much contention among the Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans who answered the call at St. Louis in 1977. It was one of the reasons for the serious divisions among them almost from the beginning.<BR/><BR/>Bishops Robert Morse and Peter Watterson, two of the original four bishops consecrated for the Continuing Anglican Church, and their followers refused to ratify the ACC Constitution and Canons at Dallas in 1978. Meanwhile, the Continuing Anglicans in Canada formed themselves into the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada and went their own way organizationally, while maintaining communio in sacris with the ACC in the U.S. as well as with those who followed Morse and Watterson into the Diocese (now Province) of Christ the King. <BR/><BR/>Thus, there never was agreement and consensus in those early days on the appropriate canonical approach and structures for the new Continuing Anglican Church. Nor was there input into them from Anglicans outside the U.S. and Canada since the ordination of women hadn’t yet spread beyond North America.<BR/><BR/>It would seem that it’s one thing to set up an international, multi-Provincial communion under a single set of canons, quite another to shepherd this communion into being and keep it together. For one thing, it’s never before been done in Anglicanism. And it would appear that unless the originating group can somehow maintain very tight control under such a system, those churches formed in other nations might ultimately choose the more familiar national, autocephalous model.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this is partly what led then-ACC Archbishop Louis Falk, in the late 1980s, to create the TAC, which seems to follow more of a national, autocephalous model than that of the ACC.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, both the ACC and the TAC exist in the world today. The question is, can the two bodies find enough common ground to join together in genuine ecumenical friendship and dialogue? Archbishop Brother-John Charles raised the question, and Archbishop Haverland has now made an overture to TAC to begin this process. It will be interesting to see how the TAC responds. Let us pray for God’s blessing and guidance on these efforts and for a good and divinely guided outcome.PrayerBookCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01561675221737931210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13472931178705554142007-08-30T08:55:00.000-04:002007-08-30T08:55:00.000-04:00Fr. Kirby noted, with regard to my account of the ...Fr. Kirby noted, with regard to my account of the origins of the TAC: "Therefore, whatever the original intentions for the ACC's structure, they were not universally accepted by those with whom we [the ACC] were in communion from very early in the piece."<BR/><BR/>True, but two things must be remembered in that connection. Firstly, I was explaining why Abp. Haverland is at present the "Acting" Primate of the ACC, not the "Primate". The structure over which that Primate will preside does exist, in the form of two united Provinces, it just hasn't yet expanded to include the third Province that will call into being the permanent form of inter-Provincial government.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, it was the choice of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada to form itself, not into what would then have been the second Province of the ACC (and which now, therefore, would have achieved the three Provinces necessary for its Holy Synod and permanent Primate) but into a completely independent body. The ACC per se was, nevertheless, perfectly willing to maintain a relationship of intercommunion with the ACC-Can., based solely upon the organic state of communion that arose through the ACC and APCK's bishops' participation in the consecration of the first Bishop for the ACC-Can. and, instead of formal documents or structures, relying upon comity, good will, and the personal integrity of the persons concerned.<BR/><BR/>The same pattern was replicated with the slightly later formation of the Anglican Catholic Church of Australia.<BR/><BR/>What the ACC's then-Acting Primate proposed in about 1989 or '90 was to broaden this ad hoc, informal arrangement beyond these two cases and to make it the normative pattern rather than the one that is foreseen by the ACC's pre-existing structures and that had, by that time, already been implemented in the case of the Church of India.<BR/><BR/>The ACC was still in the process of assessing this proposal when that Archbishop left the church. The occasion and manner of his leaving, and the breach of comity and failure of good will that were necessarily involved in the participation by the bishops of the ACC-Can. in those events, would have been less likely to have occurred under a structure of mutual accountability. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, that experience rather confirmed for most of us our previous doubts about the wisdom or soundness of the informal TAC as an alternative to the ACC's formal Constitutional provisions.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25414590056113771332007-08-30T05:29:00.000-04:002007-08-30T05:29:00.000-04:00Canon Hollister,One problem with your account of t...Canon Hollister,<BR/><BR/>One problem with your account of the creation of the TAC (and its apparent inconsistency with the original self-understanding of the ACC) is as follows. Something like the TAC had already existed <I>de facto</I> before Abp Falk's official formation of the TAC by virtue of the communion between the ACC and the ACC-Canada, the latter never having been under the ACC's jurisdiction once it was properly formed, though its original members were served by ACC bishops and Bp Morse as Episcopal Visitors until that time. Therefore, whatever the original intentions for the ACC's structure, they were not universally accepted by those with whom we were in communion from very early in the piece.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41651374237756799332007-08-29T11:58:00.000-04:002007-08-29T11:58:00.000-04:00Mr. Pacht asked, "Hasn't the Eastern Church alread...Mr. Pacht asked, "Hasn't the Eastern Church already been admitted to a limited status of intercommunion [with Rome]? It is, at this point limited, but any permission at all is vastly different from the position that such permission simply can't be given. My understanding is that the Polish National Catholic Church [PNCC] in the USA has been given a similar limited permission."<BR/><BR/>What the Roman Church did in about 1991 was essentially to place the PNCC in the same status as the Eastern Orthodox. That is, Roman Catholics, at real need, may receive the Sacraments from EO and PNCC clergy and EO and PNCC members may, at real need, receive the Sacraments from RC clergy.<BR/><BR/>That is NOT "intercommunion", limited or otherwise. As one example of this, Roman clergy are expressly forbidden to concelebrate with EO and PNCC clergy. As another example, in a "mixed" wedding, either an EO/PNCC clergyman must officiate (with the cognizant Roman Bishop's indult having first been given to the RC spouse), in which case a Roman clergyman can take some limited part in the service, OR an RC clergyman must officiate, in which case an EO/PNCC clergyman can take some limited part in the service.<BR/><BR/>Either way, there is a clear definition of "who is in charge" and sufficient separation of functions to make it obvious that there is no "joint" supervision of the rite.<BR/><BR/>Now I say all that because I believe that the actual current status of relations between Rome, on the one hand, and churches (small "c") that Rome recognizes as Sacramentally valid, on the other hand, is important for understanding how those relationships can move forward, if they can.<BR/><BR/>To put it another way, we must remember that no one who is not under Roman jurisdiction has yet achieved actual intercommunion with Rome, even when Rome recognizes their Orders and Sacraments as valid. That, I think, has important implications for any Anglican aspirations Rome-ward.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, I think we must all take note of the facts that (a) it took 20 years for the PNCC and the RCC to reach just the point of mutual recognition, and (b) for the past 16 years, and despite continued regular meetings, there has been no further movement between them that an outsider can discern. And all this where Rome and the PNCC separated only in 1897, not in 1570.<BR/><BR/>These small technical points made, I heartily agree with everything Mr. Pacht wrote in that posting.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25199569459414415562007-08-29T11:22:00.000-04:002007-08-29T11:22:00.000-04:00Michael asked, "[C]an anyone enlighten me as to Ha...Michael asked, "[C]an anyone enlighten me as to Haverland's 'Acting Primate' title? It sounds as though it's not a temporary position (since he refers to Archbishop John-Charles as 'our former Acting Primate')."<BR/><BR/>When the ACC was established as a group of former Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans, its leaders predicted that the problems then emergent in North America would soon appear elsewhere, requiring other withdrawals from official Lambeth Provinces. Therefore, the Constitution and Canons of the new body provide the structure for an international, multi-Provincial communion.<BR/><BR/>Under these, the "Original Province" (essentially the Western Hemisphere with some additions elsewhere) was later joined by the four surviving Dioceses of the historic Church of India, i.e., the four Dioceses that refused to join either of the pan-Protestant mergers in the Subcontinent, the Churches of South India and of North India. Therefore, that original Church of India (also titled the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma, and Ceylon) today forms the Second Province of the ACC, under its own Metropolitan, Archbishop John Augustine.<BR/><BR/>We still await the formation or accession of a Third Province. When that happens, a new Church-wide level of governance will automatically come into being, above the Provincial level, composed of a Primate and a Holy Synod. The Primate will be elected by the Metropolitans of the constituent Provinces and the delegates to the Holy Synod will be elected by the respective Provincial Synods, just as the Metropolitan of each Province is elected by that Province's Bishops and the delegates to each Provincial Synod are elected by the respective Diocesan Synods within tht Province.<BR/><BR/>Until that higher level of governance comes into being, the Metropolitan and Synod of the Original Province are, as the military would say, "double-hatted", serving as the Provincial governance of the Original Province but also, ex-officio, in place of the Primate and the Holy Synod which have not yet been called into existence.<BR/><BR/>Thus each Metropolitan of the Original Province has been, in succession, ex-officio the "Acting Primate" of the whole Anglican Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>It was these pre-existing arrangements for an international communion that made most within the ACC scratch their heads and wonder why further institutional duplications could be either wise or necessary when, in the late 1980s, the ACC's then-Acting Primate proposed the creation of a new entity, outside of these structures and virtually without structure of its own, which he dubbed the "Traditional Anglican Communion".<BR/><BR/>It was that lack of faith in the need for any such body that led the ACC to raise no protest when that former Acting Primate wished to take his creation with him as he exited the Church.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56852552400978364362007-08-29T09:57:00.000-04:002007-08-29T09:57:00.000-04:00If serious doubts of the validity of one's ordinat...If serious doubts of the validity of one's ordination, <I>in accord with a sound ecclesiology and sacramental theology</I> exist, then it becomes a matter of charity and humility to allow those doubts to be removed by a quiet and simple conditional ordination. <BR/><BR/>That, as I and many others believe, does apply in the case of the REC, where there is (in the past, though perhaps no more) either the reality or the appearance of flat denial of the Catholic teaching about Holy Orders.<BR/><BR/>However, if orders be recognized as 'valid, but irregular', reordination, even conditionally, becomes a very questionable thing. Frankly, even as a member of ACA, I find that to be a real problem with regard to DB itself, and it would be a repetuition of the same error to do so now. It's precisely what Clavier's vagans buddies are doing all the time.<BR/><BR/>If there were serious doubts, soundly founded, that would be a remedy, but I believe there are not. I see no evidence that the ACC at its highest levels believes that there are. Those that do express a view that ACA orders are not valid, on the other hand, seem to me to be doing so on the basis of a seriously flawed ecclesiology, one that approaches the idea of undoing ordination by a subsequent mistake. To accept conditional ordination as a result of such an opinion is to recognize the opinion as acceptable. That is not a proper determination.<BR/><BR/>What should happen? I believe my own jurisdiction should simply admit that the DB events, though well-intentioned, were mistaken, and the ACC should openly declare that our clergy are ordained. Then, recognizing that the status quo actually exists, we can leave the past behind and honestly discuss present and future matters.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47096885218316541902007-08-29T00:18:00.000-04:002007-08-29T00:18:00.000-04:00LP wrote:...would the ACA be willing to consider q...LP wrote:<BR/><I>...would the ACA be willing to consider quiet, private, "utilitarian" conditional reordinations?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see in Archbishop Haverland's statement that the ACC, at the <I>highest level</I>, doubts the validity of those orders as they are now.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69717857891698921522007-08-28T23:00:00.000-04:002007-08-28T23:00:00.000-04:00Yes, Father Hart,I neglected to mention that the A...Yes, Father Hart,<BR/>I neglected to mention that the Archbishop's treatment, while I'd still rather not go there, was very much different from the rehashing I've been seeing. There is actually something more than mere grousing over past abuses here. I have some disagreements, but no complaints with this letter. If this be a sign of the direction discussions are finally taking -- klet's do it.<BR/><BR/>ed<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-82961779469481262792007-08-28T22:58:00.000-04:002007-08-28T22:58:00.000-04:00If I understand it correctly, the ACC's position a...If I understand it correctly, the ACC's position about D.B. is that there were genuine sacramental defects in the establishment and early ordinations of the ACA. From what I can tell, some ACC priests appear to believe that ACA orders are, consequently, "valid but irregular"; some appear to believe them fully invalid.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, in one sense, D.B. is over and done with. Absolutely. People have moved on; new clergy and parishes have joined or grown up in the ACA in good faith. An ACC approach which says "pretend the ACA never happened" would be silly. I absolutely agree w/ Fr. Hart (& Fr. Nalls and others) on this point.<BR/><BR/><BR/>There were, presumably, faults on one or both sides of the events at D.B. I have no idea which side(s) or what - heck, 6 months ago I didn't even know what "Deerfield Beach" signified. But insofar as there were personal failings then, those are a matter (it seems to me) for private reconcilliation behind closed doors. Quietly put that past to rest -- be reconciled beore approaching the altar.<BR/><BR/><BR/>And if any ACC clergy are simply using a claim of "invalidity" to mask some sort of personal vendetta against certain ACA clergy, that too should be quietly fixed... just as if any ACA clergy are using a claim of "Donatisim" or "isolationism" to avoid dealing with hard or personally inconvenient issues which the ACC is actually raising, this pretense too must be quietly and privately cleared away. (I have no idea if there is <I>anyone</I> described by either of these categories -- I present them as logical [and psychologically understandable] possibilities, not as anything I know - or even have reason to suspect - to be fact.)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>On the other hand, unless folks in the ACC are simply lying about their theological reservations, there are also - as Abp. Haverland has indicated - <I>present ramifications</I> of those concerns.<BR/><BR/>For example, suppose Fr. X. believes - based on a catholic obedience to the teaching and practice of the undivided Church - that the orders of certain ACA clergy are, objectively, invalid because of the sacramental issues stemming from D.B.<BR/><BR/>He has confessed his own failings (if any) which are related to D.B.; he has forgiven his brother ACA clergy theirs (if any). In that sense, he has left D.B. behind. But he still -- in good conscience -- believes that, because of objective defects, certain ACA orders are invalid.<BR/><BR/>Now, in these circumstances, Fr. X cannot - in good, catholic conscience - move forward in sacramental or jurisdictional union with the ACA without abandoning his own catholic beliefs by accepting men he honestly believes to be laity as clergy.<BR/><BR/>He is in theological agreement with the ACA, even on the matters of ecclesiology; he earnestly wants the ACC and ACA to move forward toward jurisdictional and sacramental unity (assuming other issues - such as the relationship with the Lambeth Communion - are resolved)... but he genuinely believes that some of the ACA "clergy" are actually laity and their sacramental acts invalid.<BR/><BR/>For him, yes, D.B. is over and done with - questions of fault and mistake and sin are left behind - but the theological issues and ecclesiology remain -- and remain an impediment.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, were this is a circumstance the ACC and ACA find themselves in -- if the questions of (a) attitude toward Rome; (b) sacramental communion & relationship with the Lambeth Communion; (c) theological & ecclesiological understanding of proper ordinations were resolved -- do you think that the ACA (especially considering the conditional reordinations marking its origin) would be willing - for the sake of the "weaker brother" - to quietly, without fanfare or public todo, to <I>conditionally</I> reordain those clergy in its ranks with whom the ACC <I>in good conscience</I> has reservations?<BR/><BR/>Or is the ACA's position more likely to be that any resolution will require that all ACC clergy -- even those (assuming there are any) who believe based on honest, charitable, reasoned, and good-faith convictions, rooted in shared principles of catholic ecclesiology and theology, that certain ACA clergy are, objectively, laymen -- to capitulate on those pious convictions & consciences and accept as ordained all ACA clergy, even those they honestly believe to be laymen?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that the ACC is <I>right</I>; I'm not saying that, upon meetings and reevaluations there even <I>would</I> be such dubious cases; I'm not saying that there might not be some ACC clergy who dishonestly claim doubts where they actually don't have any.<BR/><BR/>All I'm asking is that <I>IF</I>, at the end of the day, in charity & good-faith & honest striving after orthodoxy and orthopraxis, some ACC clergy <I>have genuine doubts</I> about the validity of the orders of some ACA clergy - based on that shared commitment to orthodoxy & orthopraxis - would the ACA be willing to consider quiet, private, "utilitarian" <I>conditional</I> reordinations?<BR/><BR/>Because, if not, it seems to me (as someone who has no stake in either camp nor even an informed opinion about who was 'right' [if any] at D.B.) that what the ACA would be asking of the ACC would be, essentially, capitulation. Asking them to set aside good faith and pious and honest attempts to uphold catholic belief and practice for the sake of a jurisdictional convenience.<BR/><BR/>And it seems to me, that if you've got clergy willing to surrender their beliefs (and beliefs you share!) for the sake of convenience - even for sparing others' feelings - then you've got clergy you really wouldn't want to trust the future of Anglicanism to.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I don't know if, upon review, any ACC reservations would stand up. I don't know if the bulk of ACC priests are genuinely convinced of any invalidity in ACA orders or merely use that as a catch phrase. And I don't mean to pretend otherwise in asking the question. All I'm trying to ask is that - if the possibility of jurisdictional reunion came down to having either (1) to require some ACA clergy to accept <I>conditional</I> reordination or (2) to require some ACC clergy to violate their consciences by acting in a way they honestly believed to be unorthodox (or, at least, unorthopractical) - do you think the ACA would be willing to accept the "ignominy" of those reordinations as the lesser of the two evils?<BR/><BR/><BR/>pax,<BR/>LPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17440408000379047232007-08-28T21:39:00.000-04:002007-08-28T21:39:00.000-04:00What Archbishop Haverland has done in his statemen...What Archbishop Haverland has done in his statement, regarding DB, is not to rehash it as a past event; he has, instead, asked what it may imply about the future. He has raised the question in a responsible and reasonable way, and this implies a hope for reconciliation coupled with a need for trust. I cannot find fault with such an approach.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10117148990544523372007-08-28T20:08:00.000-04:002007-08-28T20:08:00.000-04:00LP,I'm an ACA layman, one who finds ACA definitely...LP,<BR/><BR/>I'm an ACA layman, one who finds ACA definitely preferable to ACC.<BR/><BR/>You've basically asked some very sound questions, really precisely the issues I keep trying to bring up. Thank you. <BR/><BR/>What ACA and ACC need to do is to sit down together and discuss what it is that we believe NOW. There may be issues in theology and somewhat different ways of looking at things, but the fact remains that we are far closer to agreement with one another than certain segments of the Roman Church are with certain other segments. We need to find and celebrate our commonalities and find ways to overcome whatever differences there are. That is an imperative. <BR/><BR/>What keeps it from happening? Well, one of the things is the constant hashing over the past. 1991 is past. Deerfield Beach is over and done with. Whatever errors were committed cannot be made never to have happened. If we can be in agreement as to what to teach and what to do today, then none of that matters. Just as for all our personal sins, Christ forgives -- and He doesn't demand that we fully understand every detail of the moral law when we repent, merely that we ask forgiveness as best we know how and determine with God's help to do it right this time.<BR/><BR/>I do get very upset at interminable discussions of Deerfield Beach and other mistaken or abusive actions committed in the past. I simply won't go there. However, the theological issues that may have emerged from all that are indeed things to be considered and acted upon here and now. If we can stop shouting at each other about how we hurt each other then, and get down to real theological business now, I'm convinced our differences will evaporate. If we continue as we have, they will harden.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.com