More Preaching on Evangelism

Here is another excellent sermon on evangelism and on unity, this one from Fr Warren Shaw. I have trimmed it a bit, but not in substance.

"I tell you there shall be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than over 99 just persons who need no repentance."

The Anglican Catholic Church began as a haven for persons in the Episcopal Church who were in no need of repentance. They were the faithful remnant who had not bowed the knee to Baal, which is to say that they had not accepted the innovations introduced into the Episcopal Church to make it conform to the prevailing culture.

We were not really a missionary church from the outset. Evangelism is not in our DNA. And today we are paying the price for that.

We have been going along for years depending on Episcopalians coming to us for refuge from the innovations and false teachings of the church in which they were raised. That source of new members has about dried up. Those who cannot accept the innovation of a female priesthood have already left. Those who cannot accept the revised prayer book have already left. Those who remain have "received" those innovations and accepted them as normal.

There are some who are leaving now because they cannot accept same sex marriage, but they are not coming to us. They are going to the newer Anglican bodies that have a Protestant orientation and are able to accept the previous innovations. So we can’t really look to disgruntled Episcopalians for new members. We have to look elsewhere.

One place to look is among Bible believing Christians who feel a need for the ancient liturgy and structure of the catholic church but are not ready to submit to the jurisdiction of Rome and the innovations that come with it – innovations such as papal infallibility and more recent dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. This group of people constitutes an especially good place to look for younger clergy to replace the retired Episcopalians who constitute the bulk of our aging pool of priests.

But the biggest pool, and the one we really need to fish in, is the vast number of people who have no church relationship to speak of and who really are in need of repentance, forgiveness, and conversion. These are the lost sheep, who wander through life with no compass and no anchor to counter the changing winds of popular culture that carry them along to nowhere. These are people who have no faith to turn to and no reliable community to fall back on when disaster strikes. These are people who are living off of the inherited moral capital of past generations and are rapidly exhausting it. And when one of these lost sheep is rescued, there is great joy among the angels in heaven.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that those of us who are here do not have sins to repent of and ways of living that we have to change. What I am suggesting is that one of the sins we have to repent of, and one of the ways of operating that we have to change, is the smug attitude that we are the true church and anyone who wants to join us can do so by becoming like us. What really has to happen is that we have to become more like Christ, lay aside our comfortable status, and go out looking for people who are lost and hungry and scared.

I wish I could give you a plan for doing that, but I can’t. There are people who can, however, and if we seek them out, we can learn from them together. It may not be in our DNA to do that. But DNA is not destiny unless we allow it to be.

To recognize a problem and talk about it is the first step in solving it. This passivity is a problem we cannot afford to ignore.

And it’s not the only one. There is also the problem of separation from those who should be our allies in the struggle for a true and growing Anglican presence in America. I don’t know how many Anglican bodies there are outside of The Episcopal Church in this country, but I know there are way too many. This alphabet soup is confusing, to say the least, to people who might otherwise be attracted to the Anglican way, and it is certainly sinful.

I have spoken to Bishop Campese of the Anglican Church in America about this, and I have also mentioned it to our own Bishop McClean. Both bishops tell me that they are disturbed by the situation, but none of the bishops seem to be disturbed enough to do something about it. Maybe that’s because you and I are not sufficiently disturbed.

If all of us who call ourselves Anglicans could share our resources, including our buildings and our clergy, we could develop the critical mass needed to have an impact on the kind of people we need to reach -- people who are attracted to Anglican scholarship, Anglican liturgy, Anglican fidelity to the apostolic faith-- but such people are rightly repulsed by the pettiness and infighting that they see among us.

There were differences among the apostles and the churches that they founded, but when outsiders observed how Christians lived they said, "Behold how they love one another." That’s not what outsiders say now when they look at the complex array of American Anglican churches. Now what they say is, "Call me when you get your act together."

There’s an old nursery rhyme that comes to mind when I think about the state of our church:

"Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep and doesn’t know where to find them.
"Leave them alone and they’ll come home, wagging their tails behind them."

That nursery rhyme gives very bad advice. The lost sheep will not find their way home on their own. They will not find their way here, even if we make it much easier than we do now. We have to go out and look for them. That’s what the gospel says, and if we ignore it, we will all die in our little bunkers, and no one will notice.

They Did Sign It

I want to sort this out once and for all, and will do it in the words of Archbishop John Hepworth. It has been stated as much here already, but I want to repeat it: they did sign it.

The following comes from The Pennant, vol. 30, no. 1, parish magazine of St George's Church, Columbus, Ohio of February 2008. It purports to have been written by Archbishop Hepworth and I believe that it was, as it is consistent with what he told me privately prior to the October 2007 synod in Portsmouth.

I quote in part:

"On 9th October last I returned to Rome with Bishops Mercer and Wilkinson ... This time we met with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the body appointed by the Holy See to receive applications for "Corporate Reunion" from churches that are not in Communion with the Holy See, and we carried a letter solemnly signed by the Bishops and Vicars General of the Traditional Anglican Communion during a Votive Mass for Unity in the venerable church of Saint Agatha in Portsmouth, England, where we had just completed a powerful Plenary Meeting. (My emphasis).

"May I share with you some of the letter's content and promise …

"On our acceptance of the catholic faith:

"We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…" (My emphasis)

It can't be any clearer than that.

I am also in receipt of a private communication from someone who attended the synod, and whose honesty I have no reason to doubt. In part, this person said:

"Their signing the letter addressed to the Roman authorities and putting their signatures in the catechism was a public act during a public Mass in a church whose door was wide open. I have held the catechism book in my hands and have seen all the signatures in it." (Source's emphasis)

The logical conclusion that one must draw is that anyone who asserts that the bishops have not endorsed the CCC either does not know the truth or, if you will allow the euphemism, is being economical with it.

A Critique of a Reaction to an Announcement

Archbishop John Hepworth has forwarded to me the following comment, written by Fr Samuel Edwards, in response to what the archbishop calls a "quite illiberal attack" on the Traditional Anglican Communion by Dr Peter Toon.


The issuance of a statement by the College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion has incited a heated response from Dr Peter Toon that was uncommonly quick even by his standards. The operative section of the statement is reproduced below as an aid to my readers as I endeavor to evaluate Dr Toon’s response:

“The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and entrusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See. The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primate of the TAC has agreed that no member of the College will give interviews until the Holy See has considered the letter and responded.”

Dr Toon’s article – issued on October 16, 2007, the same day the TAC Bishop’s statement was released – is being circulated on the internet under the title, “Seeking Unity with Rome: Traditional Anglican Communion's Bishops hope for acceptance.” While about a third of it is something of a commercial for a new edition of Richard Hooker’s Learned Discourse on Justification, the remainder in many particulars distorts and misrepresents the TAC Bishops’ statement.

Indeed, and ironically, Dr Toon’s response (or perhaps more accurately, his reaction) is an example of the documentary eisegesis that he has rightly condemned when it is practiced by his theological opponents: The TAC statement is interpreted not in its plain and literal sense, but according to a pre-existing set of what can only be called partisan prejudices and ad hominem presuppositions. Because of this, it should not be taken as a serious contribution to the debate (which makes it a relative rarity among its author’s writings) but instead should stand as a monument to the result of not allowing one’s first reaction to be released for public consumption until it has been considered in an objective, calm and recollected state of mind. It may be that he who hesitates is lost, but it is probably more true – it certainly not less so – that he who believes will not be in haste.

Unfortunately, Dr Toon’s prominence as a commentator does not permit allowing his reaction to pass without comment. My critique of it will progress more or less from item to item in the order in which it appears in Dr Toon’s article.

Critique

Dr Toon remarks that, in light of his reading of the teaching of Hooker, others, and the “the fundamental Formularies of the Anglican Way, with their rejection of the excesses of Romanist teaching, it is most strange that a whole group of Bishops from the Continuing Anglican Movement (having seceded from the Global Anglican Communion) should feel so confident about the orthodoxy and biblical basis of Roman Catholicism that they seek full communion with Rome-on Rome's terms and according to Rome's doctrine and dogma.”

Several things here merit comment. The first, though not the most important, is the use of the term “Romanist.” While it is still heard from anti-catholic evangelicals (who have bought into the false equation of “catholic” with “Roman Catholic”) and, more strangely, from anti-Roman high-church Anglicans (who have bought into the dubious notion that because Rome has erred through excess on certain doctrinal matters, it is no longer a catholic church), the use of this term has become almost wholly pejorative and partisan. In other words, it has become a slogan designed to elicit emotion (and thereby substitute for thought) rather than a description useful for fostering thought.

Next is the parenthetical description of the TAC Bishops (or the Continuing Anglican Movement as a whole – the exact reference is not entirely clear) as having “seceded from the Global Anglican Communion.” One is tempted to ask what GAC is being referred to here: Is it the one which looks – in an anglicized version of the ultramontane ecclesiology that it finds so offensive in the Roman Church – to communion with the See of Canterbury as its defining element? (If so, this entity hardly qualifies as a communion any more: Since clearly it has neither a common faith nor a common ministry, it is at best an association based on historical descent.) Or does he mean the nascent association rooted in the Anglican Churches of the Global South, which in the first place has not yet taken its final shape and in the second place has among its members a variance on the matter of the ordained ministry that may either prevent it from coalescing or call into question its own catholicity when and if it does so?

Next, Dr Toon alleges that the TAC Bishops are seeking “full communion with Rome – on Rome’s terms and according to Rome’s doctrine and dogma.” Presumably in support of this claim, he reproduces the full text of the official statement. The problem for him here is that there is nothing in the statement that gives a single shred of support to his extraordinary claim. (For me, this is strong prima facie evidence that this reaction was written in the white heat of emotion rather than in anything approaching scholarly objectivity.)

After helpfully supplying the reader with the text, Dr Toon then continues to attempt firmly to fix the spin he has put on the statement by wondering, “why, if these men are so sure that the Roman Way is totally superior to the Anglican Way, they are not already in the Roman Way.” But, again, the text gives no support to the assertion, and to anyone familiar with the context out of which it speaks – which, it seems to me, is a restoration of the search for “communion without absorption” begun in the archiepiscopate of Michael Ramsey and the pontificate of Paul VI – it is almost nonsensical.

The suggestion that the TAC bishops are “hanging around the periphery of the Anglican Way constantly talking of heading off” is another tendentious distortion. One might question whether anyone still in formal connection with The Episcopal Church and the Canterbury Communion, given their accelerating slide into doctrinal dissolution and institutional chaos, has a moral right to talk about peripheries at all. And so far as I am aware, no one in the TAC Council of Bishops is talking – constantly or even occasionally – about “heading off.” The talk seems to be about talking with a view toward fulfillment of the Lord’s expressed desire for unity in his truth – not Rome’s version, not ours, but his.

Dr Toon goes on to insist that, “If these Bishops believe that there is no integrity to the Anglican Way and that its only future is in the Roman Way then by all spiritual, rational and decent principles they ought surely to cross the Tiber now and find on the other side rest for their souls-and we wish them well in their voyage.” Again, his premises are assumptions grounded neither in the plain words of the text that has provoked him nor, indeed, in any official utterance of which I am aware by any bishop of the TAC. If the diagnoses – that the bishops believe that the Anglican Way has no integrity and that there is no future outside the Roman Way – are incorrect (and they are) then the remedy proposed is, at best, inappropriate.

The suggestion that, if they had any integrity, the TAC bishops would swim the Tiber forthwith and cease troubling those are portrayed as real Anglicans is interesting to me as one who has been around the Anglican church wars for thirty years: It contains clear and loud echoes of the “go away and God bless you” attitude long expressed toward traditional and conservative Anglicans in The Episcopal Church by hard-core revisionists such as Barbara Harris and contemporary TEC corporatists (including some who are soi disant conservatives, such as the current TEC bishop of Central Florida). It makes one wonder whether similar tactics might be adopted at some point by those who agree.

A relevant postscript

For some time, and at least in two articles circulated on the internet, I have made reference to what I call a fundamental difference of perception between what I call “mainstream Continuers” (those who adhere to the Affirmation of St Louis, such as TAC) and “new traditionalists” (such as the AMiA and the majority of the Common Cause Partership) on the nature of the Reformation, both in general and in its Anglican form. It is my belief that these differences go a long way toward explaining the matters which have exercised Dr Toon’s concern.

Simply put, the difference is this: Dr Toon, together with a significant body of opinion among those new traditionalists who have given the matter any thought, at least implicitly regards the English Reformation as being a completed work. Seemingly on account of this, the Church of England’s formularies – in particular the 39 Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer – have assumed a hermeneutical authority which sets them on a par with, or even above that of the Ecumenical Councils. By contrast, mainstream Continuers regard the Reformation as a work still in progress. In this view (which I believe accords with the mainstream of classical Anglican practice), it is the Articles and the BCP which need to be evaluated in light of the Councils and of Scripture rather than the other way ‘round.

(The reality of the situation is actually a bit more complex and confusing than one which simply sets the new traditionalists on the one side with the 1662 BCP and the Articles and the mainstream Continuers on the other with the 1928 BCP and the Seven Councils. Within the institutional camp of the new traditionalists are a number of people whose core convictions naturally place them in the ecclesiological orbit of the mainstream Continuers. Specifically I am thinking of those FiFNA dioceses, parishes, and people who make up a significant, albeit a minority, component of the Common Cause groupings.)

When responding to Dr Toon’s allegation last year that to accept the authority of seven rather than four Ecumenical Councils (and particularly that of the Seventh) was to go beyond genuinely Anglican principles, I expressed what I deem to be the mainstream Continuum position as follows:

… I think that the Reformation – including the English Reformation, which was far and away the most reforming and least revolutionary of the group – was an unfinished business, an opus interruptus, if you will. There are few things more frustrating than the movement which largely succeeds, yet remains incomplete in important respects, mostly having to do with the practical application of the triumphing principles (as my fellow Reagan revolutionaries in the political arena can testify). That being so, I do not believe that the Elizabethan Settlement of religion, for all its genius, is something the restoration of which ought to be pursued, not least because it is no longer possible to do so, since the idea of Christendom which it took for granted has long since passed from the status of a living reality to that of a poignant memory. The upheavals involved in the Great Rebellion (1637-49), the Commonwealth, and the Restoration Settlement (which produced the 1662 BCP) effectively stalled the completion of the English Reformation, and the process was not effectively re-started until the ecclesiastical reform movements of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Even then, it was a matter of “fits and starts” that had to await the collapse of Post-Constantinian Christendom to have a hope of fulfillment. …
[Samuel L. Edwards, “Dr Toon, the Anglican Churches,
and the 7th Council” (1 August 2006).]

In the end, it may be that only when the varied attitudes toward the Reformation heritage of the Anglican Church are confronted – with specific reference to whether its objectives were or were not attained by 1662 – that both new traditionalists and mainstream Anglicans can sort out what it is they really want and with whom they have the most genuine affinity. In the meantime, (as Bishop Jack Iker) is fond of quoting, the challenge is to remember that, “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” A major component of “the main thing” is this: “Ut unum sint.” No one’s arms are long enough to box with the one who makes that prayer.

Fr Samuel L. Edwards, SSM
Priest, DEUS/ACA/TAC
Waynesville, North Carolina
18 October 2007

Ecumenical Ice Age and the Middle Way

In the Church Times Archive you can read the April 2007 article by Canon Gregory Cameron, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion, for an overdose of understatement. This came up recently because Alistair McGrath wrote a response in the online edition of the Church of Ireland Gazette that was published Friday, October 17th. With all due respect for the learned Rev. Mr. McGrath, and for the English canon, both of these columns are truly amazing for their irrelevance and confusion.

Cameron begins his piece with a clear reference to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which has been the official Anglican statement on episcopacy and the nature of the Church since the 1880s, a statement consistent with the only form of Church structure that has existed among Anglicans. Anyone who has read Book I of Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity knows better than to accept the new conventional wisdom that he considered episcopacy merely a good idea, or that he defended it simply as a state matter. In fact, he made it clear, in his apologetic against Calvin's Geneva Discipline and the Puritans, that the form that the Church of England continued to hold was the only one found both in scripture and in the Patristic period, namely the Apostolic Succession of bishops and the universal Catholic structure as it had existed in the Church since the earliest times. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral brought nothing new to the Anglican table, and it was formulated to tell the only way forward for earnest ecumenical relations that would not compromise something of essence to the Church itself. That they merely followed the thinking of those earlier Church of England officials who gave us our Ordinal is easy enough to demonstrate. Nonetheless, in the 1880s a very firmly convinced Low Church party in the United States decided to stop trying to convert the Episcopal Church away from its Catholic episcopal structure, and so they started the Reformed Episcopal Church based on a "Declaration of Principles" unlike anything ever known to Anglicanism, except when such doctrines were refuted in apologetics. This was not the first Continuing Church, as some have tried to insist, for the REC broke away from the Episcopal Church when it was solid and healthy based on their rejection of Catholic principles that our Continuing Church movement has held since the writing of the Affirmation of St. Louis. The REC began as a very anti-Catholic defection from Anglicanism, reducing episcopacy to merely a human convention.

Nonetheless, McGrath considered Cameron's mention of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral to be "remarkable," and wrote a piece about the Protestantism of Anglicanism, its Reformation heritage and its proper designation as a "denominational family." His article reached its peek with this line:

"Yet historians such as Diarmaid McCulloch have rightly pointed out that the ‘middle way’ developed in England in the late sixteenth century was between Lutheranism and Calvinism – two quite distinct versions of Protestantism. The ‘middle way’ which resulted was neither Calvinist nor Lutheran – but it was certainly Protestant."

First of all, the words "Catholic"and "Protestant" should not be used by any Anglican as mutually exclusive. About Anglicanism, "certainly Protestant" is only as accurate as "certainly Catholic." Rome does not define what is "Catholic" for Anglicans; and "Protestant"- a merely 500 year old designation- is not the antithesis or opposite of "Catholic." Furthermore, McGrath's (or rather McCulloch's) thesis is based on a very subtle use and selection of every extreme and deviant position he could find from the sources, never placed against the self-evident facts of history. The idea that Anglicans were trying to achieve a balance between Calvinism and Lutheranism fails to take into account how much they rejected from both sources, and it fails to notice the obvious. It fails to notice the entire Ordinal with its Preface, and the facts of what the Church of England actually did in maintaining Episcopacy against the efforts of Presbyterians. It fails to notice the obvious fact that the Church of England took care to preserve, always, the unbroken Apostolic Succession of Bishops.

Earlier in the piece McGrath wrote:

"Some point to Charles I as the classic representative of this ‘Anglo-Catholicism’. Yet they too easily overlook the awkward fact that, on the evening before his execution, Charles told his thirteen-year old daughter, Elizabeth, that he was to die for 'maintaining the true Protestant religion', and urged her to read the works of Lancelot Andrewes and Richard Hooker 'to ground [her] against Popery'".

Well, there was no such thing in those days as Anglo-Catholicism, and it is unlikely that anyone has ever so presented King Charles I. But, we call him a martyr because he did have the opportunity to save his life and keep his crown as a Constitutional Monarch if only he would abolish the episcopate. He refused, and chose instead to die. "Popery" was not, in the terms of that day, "Catholicism." At that time a Christian could be a Protestant Catholic or a Papist Catholic; the idea of having to be either Catholic or Protestant, or that rejection of "popery" was to reject the Catholic Church and Faith of the Creeds, simply did not enter their thinking. And, in Anglicanism such a choice has never existed. The modern usage of these words, applied retro-actively by McGrath, is unfortunate and misleading.

However, just because I reject the points raised by Alister McGrath, do not imagine that I found Canon Cameron's ideas to be palatable either. The Deputy Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion treats the last three decades of moral and theological decay as if they have been simply a part of the process towards Reunion that has followed a progressive and positive development. He treats the "ordination" of women as a minor doctrinal obstacle, when in fact it has destroyed all the past efforts at Reunion with Rome, and unity with the Orthodox. He treats the merely polite, but futile, ongoing discussions with those ancient communions as if between each of them and the Anglican Communion, in recent years, there have been steady ecumenical gains. And, in a very telling way, he treats the ecumenical relations with mainline Protestantism as something of equal importance to the Reunion of the Catholic Communions. The title of his rosey picture is "Ecumenical Spring is already here." He concludes his cheery little fantasy with these happy and inspiring words:

"...the concept of what ecumenism is has become richer. It is no longer about doctrinal recognisability, but about shared mission and worship, reconciliation on the personal and political, as well as the ecclesial, levels. It is no longer conceivable for any one Church of the Christian oikumene to go it alone. Despite late frosts, in the continuing reality of an ecumenical spring, genuine partnerships are forged, and deep friendships are founded."

So, the fact that everything with both Rome and Orthodoxy is frozen, despite meaningless chatter that still goes on; and despite the fact that strong ties with certain mainline Protestant Churches are based on a shared commitment to non-commitment, and a shared dogma that dogma is unimportant, it is really an "ecumenical Spring" because of all the new friends who will drink tea together.

Looking at both of these articles makes me very glad to be a Continuing Anglican. Almost everything that comes from the Cantuarian crowd these days is based on some sort of distortion.

And where might this lead?

In 1995 a small book, more of a booklet with only 58 pages, was published by Guildford that consisted of historical research by Brian Taylor on the subject of the agreements of Bonn and Meissen with the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Taylor documented a very important fact, namely that the Anglican motivation for the Old Catholic infusion in 1930 by means of co-consecration of Anglican bishops had nothing to do with Anglican uncertainty about the validity of its orders. Then Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Lang and the other major Anglicans stood by the 1897 apologetic work by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Saepius Officio. The work by Taylor documents that the Infusion was sought in order to make Anglican orders more acceptable to Rome in the event of possible Reunion at some point in the future. Furthermore, when Archbishop Michael Ramsey met with Pope Paul VI in 1966, and the Pope gave the Archbishop his ring, it set in motion stronger ties and more serious efforts at Reunion that led to ARCIC.

Meanwhile, in an ongoing series of discussions between Anglicans and the Orthodox Church since the days of Lancelot Andrewes, things had reached a new high in 1922. Documents show, as can be seen on the Project Canterbury website, that between 1922 and 1936, Orthodox Patriarchs had, one after another, written to the See of Canterbury to recognize the validity of Anglican orders (in the fullest theological sense) and to work toward real unity: As the 1930 Christmas letter from the Patriarchate of Alexandria summarized the matter: "The Holy Synod recognizes that the declarations of the Orthodox, quoted in the Summary, were made according to the spirit of Orthodox teaching. Inasmuch as the Lambeth Conference approved the declarations of the Anglican Bishops as a genuine account of the teaching and practice of the Church of England and the Churches in communion with it, it welcomes them as a notable step towards the Union of the two Churches. And since in these declarations, which were endorsed by the Lambeth Conference, complete and satisfying assurance is found as to the Apostolic Succession, as to a real reception of the Lord’s Body and blood, as to the Eucharist being thusia hilasterios (Sacrifice), and as to Ordination being a Mystery, the Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized."

As these two discussions were underway with the serious intention of joining the Anglican Communion to Rome and to Orthodoxy, it seemed that a new definition could be given to the Via Media, no longer just a possible bridge between the Protestant churches of the Continental Reformation and Rome, but a bridge to join Rome and the Orthodox Church, ending the Great Schism that has, as its most consequential date, 1054; the year when Christianity was divided into two schisms each claiming to be the One True Church. The Anglican Communion presented to the whole Church of Christ its greatest hope to work toward the real ending of its sad divisions.

Then came 1976, and the "ordination" of women in the Episcopal Church as well as in a few other churches of the Anglican Communion.

Immediately, Pope Paul VI canceled possible plans to rescind the 1896 Bull on Anglican Orders as no longer applicable to Anglican orders (indicating that Archbishop Lang and others had been realistic in 1930) . In 1978 Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras remarked: “…the theological dialogue [between the Orthodox and the Anglicans] will continue, although now simply as an academic and informative exercise, and no longer as an ecclesial endeavor aiming at the union of the two churches."1 As a result of revisionists having their way and contradicting almost 2,000 years of Tradition and adherence to Scripture, the gains toward hope of true Catholic unity was reduced to a pile of rubble, and the talks carried on between the Anglican Communion and Rome, and between the Anglican Communion and Orthodoxy, have been nothing but mere polite formality with no real potential. Furthermore, the heresies in the official Canterbury Anglican Communion have continued to mount so that what is discussed these days among seemingly orthodox Anglicans (only "orthodox" by comparison to other Anglicans) has to do with gross sin and open rebellion, widespread acceptance of immorality and complete renunciation of all true beliefs.

None of these developments are a surprise to Continuing Anglicans. The issue of women's "ordination" that made the movement necessary was simply the opening of a door to rejection of authority, the authority of Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition. With that door opened, every heresy that can be taught must be taught, and every sin that can be justified and practiced will be justified and practiced. It is just a matter of time, and both recent history and current events prove our point.

The TAC and Rome

Jump ahead to this week's announcement. Comments have been veering in all directions. But, the questions remain unanswered as to what is really happening. However, the potential exists for something to resume that could bring the old hope of unity through a bridge church communion back to life. Yes, the TAC is much smaller than the Anglican Communion; but, if any serious body of Anglicans can be taken seriously by Rome, and one hopes eventually by Orthodoxy, maybe the bridge can be rebuilt. It remains to be seen. But, with God all things are possible- and does anyone really believe that Satan can have a victory against inscrutable providence?

(1) As quoted in Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement, (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), p.3

"Full, Corporate, Sacramental Union"

Two alert readers have already sent this along as comments, but I think it warrants a post of its own. It is a statement by the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) primate, Archbishop John Hepworth, on the much-awaited news from Portsmouth. It is just what he told me that he hoped would happen and the cause, hopefully, for much rejoicing.

"The College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth, England, in the first week of October 2007. The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and entrusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See.
The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primate of the TAC has agreed that no member of the College will give interviews until the Holy See has considered the letter and responded."
+ John

TAC College of Bishops

Yesterday was the final day of the meeting in Portsmouth, England of the Traditional Anglican Communion's College of Bishops. I have been eagerly awaiting news of a decision coming out of that meeting that, if it transpires, would represent an historic and ground-breaking development in the life of the Church.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to make contact with my correspondent at the meeting, either by phone or by email. If he reads this, would he please file his first dispatch?

For the moment, I am only at liberty to say that the matter relates to the TAC's ongoing discussions with the Vatican about closer relations.

A well-placed inside source told me that a measure was expected to be adopted at the CoB meeting that would substantially further those discussions. In the event that it was adopted, it was to serve as the key subject of further talks in Rome next week.

Contrary to what I was told to expect, I have received no communique from the TAC on the outcome of the CoB meeting. Furthermore, as of today, the only item I can find about it on the TAC's website is one about the consecration on Tuesday of the Revd Michael Gill as successor to the (late) Bishop Trevor Rhodes, Anglican Church in Southern Africa TR.

While this proves nothing, it leads me to wonder whether the measure in question failed or if action on it was postponed for some reason. As I said, I was told that the prospects for its adoption were very strong.

Open Letter to the TAC from the ACC

This letter has been sent to Archbishop Hepworth, Primate of the TAC, and Archbishop Langberg, Metropolitan of the ACA (TAC). It is an open letter from the Acting Primate of the ACC, Archbishop Haverland, and has received the approval of his College of Bishops. The title, greeting and "sign-off" have been omitted here.

In June 2007 my predecessor, the Most Reverend Brother John-Charles, F.O.D.C., and I each issued a statement bearing on ecumenical relations. Both statements were made with the foreknowledge and approval of the College of Bishops.

My statement was primarily directed towards the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) and the United Episcopal Church of North America (UEC). This statement since has been affirmed and endorsed by the Most Reverend James Provence, Metropolitan of the APCK, and the Most Reverend Stephen C. Reber, Presiding Bishop of the UEC. The effect of this joint statement has been to affirm or reaffirm that among these three Churches there is a state of full communio in sacris and that we agree jointly that we should encourage unity both among ourselves considered collectively and also within each of our Churches considered separately. We also have agreed to the principle that we are not and cannot be in a state of full communio in sacris with ecclesial bodies that are part of the Lambeth Communion, or indeed with ecclesial bodies that are indirectly in such full communion.

At this point it may be worthwhile to outline why we have come to this conclusion regarding the Lambeth Communion. For some time, well into the 1990s, the ACC still considered itself in full communion with every province or autonomous diocese in the Anglican Communion that did not ordain women. This is shown in the Athens Statement on Unity of 1995, which said “we see our duty as lying towards the retention and maintenance of communion with those Churches, Provinces, and Dioceses of the Anglican Communion which have remained faithful to their Apostolic foundations.”

However, we did not consider ourselves in full communion with any of the dioceses subject to heterodox provinces, even if it was headed by a bishop who, while personally orthodox in theory, refused to fulfill his Catholic obligation to repudiate clearly communion with the heretical remainder of his province. That is to say, we reasoned that since the justification for our existence as a communion separate and apart from the Lambeth one was the strict obligation of repudiating a manifestly heterodox jurisdiction, then to treat those who rejected or ignored this obligation as properly Catholic and Orthodox would be radically inconsistent with our justification for our own origin.

In the period since the 1992 defection of Canterbury we have seen that no attempt has been made by purportedly orthodox Anglican provinces to repudiate publicly Eucharistic communion with Canterbury (or, indeed, with other heterodox provinces). Therefore, given that communion with Canterbury as a central reference point and “instrument of unity” is still considered the sine qua non for membership in the official Anglican Communion, we have determined that all churches remaining in that group have signalled that they do not consider the ordination of women a communion-breaking issue. Thus their orthodoxy is at least questionable, and we cannot be in a state of communio in sacris with them until they make a clean break and so clarify their teaching.

The statement of Archbishop John-Charles looked further a-field than mine and was directed towards all of those who understand themselves to be committed to the Affirmation of Saint Louis. Archbishop John-Charles encourages all such Churchmen to put aside sin and self and to work earnestly for unity among our selves. Archbishop John-Charles also challenges us all to recognize that continuing communion, whether direct or indirect, with Lambeth Communion bodies is unacceptable. While we can and should certainly work for closer relations with those still in the Lambeth Communion, if they agree with us about the basic principles of the Affirmation, nonetheless we cannot be in full communion with them until they have unambiguously and completely severed their ties with an heretical Communion.

The statements from Archbishop John-Charles and from me should be taken together. My statement sets forth the starting point for the ACC’s ecumenical policies and endeavors. Archbishop John-Charles’s statement points to our broader goals and also to the limits that constrain us in pursuing those goals.

There are several Churches or ecclesial bodies apart from the ACC/APCK/UEC which understand themselves to be “traditional Anglicans” or even “Continuing Churches” and are not in the Lambeth Communion. Some of these bodies are not addressed by either ACC archiepiscopal statement because these bodies clearly do not accept the Affirmation and its central principles. In particular a variety of neo-Anglican bodies have formed recently, and still are forming, in North America. These bodies reject some of the theological errors currently abroad in the Lambeth Communion, but nonetheless accept women’s ordination, modernist liturgies, or other serious innovations rejected by the Affirmation. These bodies tend to form as offshoots of what they consider to be “conservative” Lambeth Communion Provinces. While, again, conversations with such folk are possible, we cannot anticipate significant ecumenical progress with them in the short term: our initial assumptions are too far apart.

Another grouping, which includes the Anglican Province of America (APA), formally endorses the Affirmation, but seems to us to embrace ecumenical relationships and other policies which effectively contradict the Affirmation. While we might hope for progress with this group because of its formal endorsement of the Affirmation, here also we do not look for immediate or short term progress.

It is our belief that the most significant body of conservative or traditional Anglicans not described by the principles set forth in the foregoing paragraphs is your own, the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), which includes the Anglican Church in America (ACA).

Some assert that the ACC has a rigid view of the TAC and has refused to engage in dialogue with the TAC. This is simply false. On at least four occasions in the last five years TAC bishops have approached ACC leaders or have been approached by us. On each of these occasions the ACC has put into writing the issues we believe need to be addressed before we can move to a relationship of full communio in sacris with the TAC. In each case our position was given frankly, directly, politely, and was not widely publicized because doing so could be interpreted as seeking not true unity but instead mere political advantage.

We set no preconditions for conversations, but indicated principles that we considered essential. In one case in 2005 a TAC bishop was invited, at his request, to the Provincial Synod of the ACC’s Original Province. This bishop was warmly received, attended the public meetings of our College of Bishops and then of the Synod, came to dinner with the College, had private conversation with me, and received a copy of my report as chairman of our Department of Ecumenical Relations, which included a clear, written statement of our ecumenical policies and principles. While with us, he appeared to be pleased and made several tentative proposals for further steps. However, after the Synod there was no further contact of substance. Likewise the other TAC-ACC contacts mentioned ended with the TAC bishops failing to continue the dialogue. We do not note this fact to complain: the TAC may well have had good reasons not to sustain dialogue. But it is not true that the ACC has been “isolationist”, unwilling to engage in dialogue, or even unfriendly towards the TAC.

We are happy to acknowledge that the initiative for making contact has often been taken in an admirable way by the TAC. For example, Archbishop Hepworth, as Primate of the TAC, arranged a face-to-face meeting with Archbishop John-Charles, our former Acting Primate, where important ecumenical matters were discussed. This meeting, held on the 19th of March, 2004, was friendly and a good beginning.

Thereafter, we sent to Archbishop Hepworth a paper discussing the theological issues between our churches. However, the official response of the TAC foreshadowed by Archbishop Hepworth never came. Later requests for such a response, expressly conveyed to the TAC bishop who attended our last Provincial Synod as the TAC’s emissary, also came to nothing. Thus, the ecumenical ball has consistently been returned by the ACC to the TAC side of the court, where it consistently has rolled to a stop.

Before moving to the substantial issues outstanding between the ACC and TAC, I should say that in what follows I do not presume to speak for the UEC or the APCK, though I have given their chief bishops copies of this document in advance. While I believe the UEC and APCK share some of our concerns, and while no formal steps will be taken by the ACC with other Churches or ecclesial bodies without seeking approval or at least acquiescence from the UEC and APCK, in what follows I speak for myself and for my Church alone.


Deerfield Beach

We understand the objections to bringing up the subject of the Deerfield Beach consecrations. Many feel that raising this subject merely dredges up the past in an unnecessary and unforgiving way, which betrays a lack of perspective and constitutes a refusal to face the real challenges of the future. However, the problem is not that we cannot or will not forgive, for we are certainly willing to do so. Similarly, we are willing to discuss the rescinding of disciplinary sentences against former ACC bishops now in the TAC, as noted in the paper sent to Archbishop Hepworth some years ago.

However, the real problem is that neither our pardon of perceived past offences or our silence concerning such, brings us much closer to genuine reconciliation. It is this that is seldom understood. There are a number of reasons to consider the Deerfield Beach events, quite apart from issues of justice or mercy. To begin with, it should not be forgotten that the ACA was founded by these very events and that the TAC (minus the ACC, which was until then a member of that body) performed them. Thus it is not unreasonable to ask whether any objective disorders therein in fact essentially characterize the nature of the ACA and of the post-1991 TAC. These issues will be discussed below with the specific intention of unfolding their possible theological implications in the present.

The ACA began in 1991 when five bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church joined with a body called the American Episcopal Church (AEC), whose leader was a colorful episcopus vagans named A.F.M. Clavier. This union was effected in Deerfield Beach, FL, within the ACC’s Diocese of the South, when all of the men who were intended to be bishops in the ACA were consecrated conditionally by, among others, the Right Reverend Robert Mercer and the Right Reverend Charles Boynton.

Bishop Mercer was Ordinary of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACC-C), which at the time was in a state of full communio in sacris with the ACC and with Archbishop Lewis, the Ordinary of the ACC’s Diocese of the South (and by that time already Archbishop Falk’s successor as ACC Metropolitan). Bishop Boynton was a bishop of the ACC residing in the Diocese of the South. The consecrands included not only A.F.M. Clavier and other bishops of the AEC but also the five bishops of the ACC. Clergy and laymen of Bishop Lewis’s diocese also were ordained at Deerfield Beach for the ACA.

However, in clear contradiction of ecumenical canon law and sound principles of Catholic order, bishops in full communion with Archbishop Lewis and the ACC entered his diocese, ordained laymen and clergy of his diocese without his permission or foreknowledge, and reconsecrated several of his episcopal colleagues without his permission or foreknowledge. They did this also without the permission or foreknowledge of the majority of the ACC’s bishops. It is difficult for us not to see this as the serious ecclesiastical offence of invasion.

The ACC does not recall these unfortunate events in order to reopen old wounds or to indicate a refusal or failure to forgive. The ACC recalls these events in order to probe the ecclesiology of the TAC as an important and necessary part of ecumenical dialogue. The ACC has to ask what theological principles could justify what happened at Deerfield Beach? What essential failure or heresy could justify such unfriendly acts towards Bishop Lewis and the majority of his colleagues who remained loyal to the ACC? Perhaps more importantly, in the future if the ACC achieved full communio in sacris with the TAC but then in some way displeased the TAC, could such events occur again? And if not, why not?

If, on the one hand, the consecrators and consecrands at Deerfield Beach, who were in the process of abandoning the ACC or its communion (despite not, except in one case, formally resigning from it), acted for what they deemed to be necessary, justifiable, and important reasons, why do not those reasons still exist and remain as a barrier between the TAC and the ACC? If, on the other hand, the consecrators and consecrands were guilty of unjustifiable oath-breaking and invasion, why have they not expressed regret, apologized, and perhaps even sought to return to our communion? This apparent dilemma remains unresolved, and until it is resolved, the ACC cannot be sure that we will not suffer similar invasion and schism in the future at the hands of the TAC.

At the time of Deerfield Beach one of the ACA’s bishops justified his departure from the ACC by asserting that the ACC’s ecumenical policy was an essential error that demanded departure from the ACC and so also repudiation of his oaths thereto. Since that policy has not changed to become more like that of the TAC, does the TAC believe that there still is an essential or Church-dividing error in ACC ecumenical policy? If not, what has changed? Or was the ACA bishop mistaken earlier?

In asking these questions the ACC is not demanding apologies or refusing to forgive or seeking to score debating points. The ACC is concerned to understand the ecclesiological principles that govern the TAC and its partners in dialogue.


The Lambeth Communion

At the time of this writing two bishops of the TAC appear to be simultaneously bishops in a diocese of the Lambeth Communion. One of the same two bishops appears to be rector of a parish in the Episcopal Church. In the last three years the TAC has claimed another Lambeth Communion bishop from Africa as one of its own, or at least has claimed a state of full communio in sacris with him. The TAC appears to enjoy or seek a state of full communio in sacris with a number of other “conservative” Lambeth Communion bishops. The TAC also has a close relationship with Forward-in-Faith and other para-Church organizations whose status is unclear and somewhat unsettling. Forward-in-Faith/North America, for instance, has recently elected a bishop. The ACC does not understand how a para-Church organization can elect a bishop. How does the TAC, which is in full communion with Forward-in-Faith, view a Forward-in-Faith bishop?

The ACC has difficulty reconciling many of these relationships and facts. Taken as a whole, these relationships and facts suggest an unacceptable laxity in regards to the Lambeth Communion and a willingness, when it appears to be expedient, to avoid clear conclusions. Once again we seek to understand the TAC’s ecclesiology and its limits and implications. We have asked such questions before quietly and in private, as I have noted above, and have not received answers. We only ask such difficult questions now more publicly because we have been publicly accused of rigidity and refusal to engage the TAC in dialogue.


Rome

A great deal of confusing information and many doubtful claims have circulated within the last three years concerning the TAC and the Roman Catholic Church. Careful attention to all press reports and official statements on the matter have not resolved the confusion in our minds. We do not understand if the TAC seeks to become a part of the Roman Catholic Church, whether as a Uniate Church or merely a personal prelature, if it seeks a relationship of full communio in sacris with Rome without any organic and organizational unity, or if it seeks some other goal.

Again, this matter has important ecclesiology implications which need to be clarified if fruitful dialogue with the ACC is to occur. It is not for the ACC to dictate the TAC’s policy towards Rome. But there is little point in the ACC talking to the TAC if the TAC merely seeks to become absorbed into the Roman Catholic Church.


Conclusion

This is not an exhaustive set of concerns, but it suggests important areas which, if clarified, would take the ACC a long way towards understanding the TAC better. I have noted to more than one TAC bishop that we understand that the TAC may well have questions for and concerns about us. We ask what we ask, not in a spirit of self-justification, but in a sincere attempt to clarify our own position and to understand the position of the TAC. We recognize the many subjective and objective sins and negligences that exist among us in the ACC. We understand that our own sins contributed to our unhappy division. But if we are to progress we must talk. And if we are to talk, the conversation has to begin and then must be pursued. We are willing and still are waiting.

Theological Healing

Commonly accepted conventional wisdom tells us that in order to have peace we ought to speak only of events or the weather or popular gossip about well known individuals. However, one subject sure to create strife, if not acrimony and hostility, is theology. And, like many other things that everybody knows, this is simply false. This blog has demonstrated that the Continuing Church is divided over many things, but not theology. Furthermore, a good look at what we have discussed here proves two things: 1) our divisions are not theological, and 2) only by theological discussion do we have the hope of restoring unity among our jurisdictions in this Anglican diaspora.

In recent months we have mentioned specific historical events and the names of specific bishops and archbishops, and have addressed the disagreements between jurisdictions as they are rooted in past events. My own contributions have included criticism and have called into question the motives behind new twists and turns in Continuing Church relations. One result was an exchange of comments that put me at odds with an ACC priest, Rev. Canon John Hollister. But, then a funny thing happened.

In the threads of comments after the two articles I posted about marriage and annulments, a very useful exchange of thought followed in which I came to realize that I enjoyed reading the erudite and sound comments of Fr. Hollister. Furthermore, when Fr. Edwards joined in, we could see the complementary thinking between this priest recently joined to the ACA, Fr. Hollister of the ACC, and me- the provocateur.

Why not? We are all Traditional Anglicans who embrace the Catholic Faith of our Church tradition, and who find our common ground in what we believe. The Continuing Church has been riddled with divisions for thirty years, almost never based on principle or doctrine, and, more often than not, based on the failure of those who hold the same doctrine to get along with each other. Those who worship with the same liturgy, and the consequential effect of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi on our minds and hearts, have been divided by engaging in everything from turf wars to simple indifference. Sometimes the divisions seem to have some element of principle, even of theological substance. Yet, they have not been laid on the table and discussed as subjects of theology, but, instead, all too often as matters of jurisdiction.

And yet, finding common ground in theology is the way to heal the divisions, inasmuch as we are all traditional Anglicans. This is what has been going on between the four of us who contribute to this blog. We represent three separate jurisdictions between us, but have been posting together from a common theological foundation. Albion approached us with this idea, initially, because we were wearing ourselves out writing apologetic comments on Fr. Al Kimmel’s Pontifications blog, defending our Anglican beliefs and orders against the usual RC attacks (especially novel Newmanian theories). We were tired of repeating the same answers (usually met with everything from repetition to Bulverism), and decided to make our own points and let others disagree with us in their own comments. We stood together in our theology, and so have had no strife among ourselves.

This blog is still committed to the healing of the sad divisions among Continuing Churchmen of orthodox faith. We have a common basis for our belief, a well developed Catholic and Evangelical Faith unique to Anglicanism for its clarity and balance. In addition to theology, the Anglican mind has resources of philosophy and critical thinking, and a boldness of erudition that stands as judge of the errors of passing ages, weighing in the balance popularly conceived prejudices of the zeitgeist against right reason, and finding them wanting. This we do rooted and grounded in the Catholic Tradition, enlightened by the English rediscovery of the riches of Patristic writings, and rooted in theology.

This blog offers the only remedy for Continuing Church divisions, namely theological healing.

A Neglected Opportunity

From a hotel in Flagstaff, AZ. I have access to the archives of Touchstone magazine. After the news from Rome last month, it occcurs to me to provide some background. Therefore, I take you to June 2002 and one of my articles on an even earlier document.


A Neglected Opportunity

Robert Hart on the Criticisms of Dominus Iesus

In the Fall of 2000, the document Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church was put out by the Vatican to make it clear that sound doctrine is not superseded by the passing of time and that eternal verities are not subject to any essential change simply because mankind, including the Church, experiences the increase of knowledge. Among the eternal verities, it included, much to the indignation of some other Christians and the press, the claims of the Roman Catholic Church.

I am an Anglican priest, not a Roman Catholic, and when I first read the news reports, I was sure that the Vatican had gone much too far. I began to exchange words to that effect with my Roman Catholic brother, until I read the declaration for myself. Then I said, in his language, mea maxima culpa, which in my language means, “by my own most grievous fault.” For what I saw in it was simply what the Holy Father intended, as America Press would later report: “The cardinal [Ratzinger], responding to criticism . . . said it was written because Pope John Paul II ‘wanted to offer the world a great and solemn recognition of Jesus Christ as Lord at the culminating moment of the Holy Year.’”

The primary issue in the document is the unchanging universality of the gospel. It boldly defends the mission of the Church, and encourages us with a reminder that that mission remains exactly what the Lord Jesus commanded, that his gospel be presented to all peoples as the revelation of God’s salvation for all nations on the earth. At a time when such a defense is sorely needed, Dominus Iesus heartily proclaims what all Christians should hold dear, that the gospel is unequaled by anything in the variety of mankind’s religious genius.

Essentials Maintained
With profound sensitivity, both to non-Christian religions and other Christians who are, like myself, not in communion with Rome, the Vatican maintained the essentials of the faith shared by Christians the world over. Appealing to Scripture from beginning to end in a way reminiscent of the patristic method, the Roman see maintained the unique and universal saving revelation of God in Christ, as the full title of the declaration suggests.

This Vatican document spoke of the Church. This it had to do as part of its thorough discussion of salvation, in which discussion the Church must figure as the instrument of God’s kingdom on earth. The Church does not merely proclaim redemption, it offers redemption, having in its life the full gift of salvation in Christ, both by his Word and by the sacraments.

The document said nothing new, and following the pattern of The Catechism of the Catholic Church, maintained the Magisterium’s teaching on the Petrine See in a way most sensitive to those who do not agree, but are, nonetheless, baptized into Christ and share the same faith of the Creed and the same Scriptures. It acknowledged their place in Christ and their ministry of spreading his salvation, even if they are “not in perfect communion” with the See of Rome.
Read carefully, it does not “unchurch” baptized and faithful Christians, though it never wavers in its adherence to the belief that the fullness of the Church “subsists in the Catholic Church.”

“Fullness” does not mean that the Church subsists exclusively in the Catholic Church, but speaks of the whole deposit of truth and of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that is entrusted to her.
Among these gifts of the Spirit are the sacraments. The truth is the teaching that has been handed down from Christ and his apostles through all of the subsequent ages, and that is guarded by the successor of St. Peter, namely, the bishop of Rome. This was the belief of the Catholic Church long before Dominus Iesus was written.

Alleged Offense
Faithful to its own beliefs, the Vatican expressed the different degrees of closeness to the Catholic Church held by the other Christian Churches. In so doing, it created the one and only section used as a “pull quote” by the press. The alleged offense was in its description of the Catholic Church and its treatment of the rest of the Christian world as being either “particular Churches” or not Churches at all but “ecclesial communities.”

The offending passage began with the claim that “there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.” It then described, in a less controversial passage, “the Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist.”

These it called “true particular Churches” and said that in them “the Church of Christ is present and operative . . . even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”

Dominus Iesus then discussed those “ecclesial communities” that “have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery.” These, it said, “are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”

These words received all the attention, but it would have been only fair to give equal attention to these words that followed:

Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

But such attention was not given by the press.

The hue and cry that followed drowned out the real message of the declaration. In fact, one would think that the whole doctrine of papal primacy had been invented in and for this very document, meant by the Vatican to set back ecumenical progress by a hundred years.
Clearly, throughout Dominus Iesus, the Roman See has taken care to express a degree of solidarity with all Christians, but not in such a manner as to compromise its own doctrine. But, to be considered “proper” or not “proper” does not carry within it a judgment on the reality of salvation in Christ or the genuine faith of those Churches. It speaks instead of the conviction that, in various degrees, they lack the “fullness” God intended.

Yet, this charitable restatement of Roman doctrine was treated as a shocking bit of incivility. Most astonishing of all was the reaction of the archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey, who immediately expressed his offense at being told that the Anglican Communion was not a “proper” Church, despite the fact that the Anglicans were never mentioned by name.

Two Ironies
“The idea that Anglican and other churches are not ‘proper churches’ seems to question the considerable ecumenical gains we have made,” said Archbishop Carey. There are two ironies here.

The first is in whom Carey (speaking for many other religious leaders) blamed for the division. Beginning in the latter half of the nineteenth century, a desire to pursue ecumenical relations with Rome was increasingly a priority of the Anglican Communion. Relations continued along a road of significant progress, reaching what would prove to be their summit in the 1960s and early 1970s, during the time of Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey. But the unity sought for was not to be achieved.

The failure was principally caused by a rebellion against Church Tradition in the 1970s, namely, the decision of Anglican bodies, including the Episcopal Church, to admit women to the priesthood. This spread to other churches of the Anglican Communion until England began to “ordain” women in 1992. This was done with the active support of Dr. Carey, though he knew that the innovation would be the death knell of hopes for unity with the Church of Rome, and with the Orthodox Church as well.

Now there are female Anglican clergy whose ordination never can be seen as sacramentally valid, not only by Rome and Orthodoxy, but by traditional Anglicans as well. What a very unecumenical development indeed, not only breaking off useful discussions with the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but sharply dividing the Anglican Communion itself. It is one of the reasons why I am a priest in the Continuing Anglican movement, separated from the Episcopal Church in which I was raised, and therefore from Canterbury, too.

Add to this the diversity of moral teaching that has come to be associated with the once good Anglican name, against which the archbishop has given no strong defense, and his statement must be turned on himself. It all does great harm to “the considerable ecumenical gains we have made.” For the Vatican to restate its long-held doctrine on the Primacy is by no means a significant obstacle to ecumenical progress. And how could it compare to the unfaithfulness the archbishop has supported?

Discussions between Rome and the Anglican Communion have become a mere formality, without real purpose, due to the novelty of women’s “ordination” in 1976. Time has seen the situation worsen, and all by acquiescence to the initiative of apostasy in the Anglican Communion, not by Roman intransigence. What, then, is the basis of the English archbishop’s complaint?

Various Protestant leaders jumped onto the bandwagon with Dr. Carey, denouncing the bad manners of the pope, and especially of Cardinal Ratzinger. In fact, so have significant leaders within the Roman Catholic Church. What have they all missed? What, in this document, have they ignored? This is where we find the second irony: Dominus Iesus is a document that deserves to be seen in exactly the opposite way to the reputation it has been given. It is, in fact, a very ecumenical document.

Two Kinds of Ecumenism
Of course, we must bear in mind the distinction between two kinds of ecumenism. We have become perhaps too used to a sloppy kind, the kind in which anything of substance, about which people may disagree, is simply avoided. Serious thought is extinguished, and the lesson is learned that theology is a bad word, something to be avoided at all costs. Is it any wonder that from such ecumenism as this only laziness, and eventually immorality, can grow?

The other kind of ecumenism is the kind that takes seriously the need to hold dear the truth for which we are willing to die, and for charity’s sake to find common ground as Christians. Theology and morals are not allowed to slide into the abyss. Where we can agree, we do so in good conscience, and where we cannot agree, we disagree with charity. Our common purpose is to serve our Lord, and as much as we can honestly do so, to serve him together. And here we find that there is much common ground.

The document Dominus Iesus serves, by its main emphasis on “the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church,” this very end. It serves it not only as between different respective Churches and Rome, but also among all Christians in a more general sense. It fits the second model of ecumenism, the mature and responsible kind, by establishing common ground on matters of major importance without the pretense of ignoring essential differences. This is simple honesty.

The body of Dominus Iesus is a powerful and eloquent statement of the Christian faith, carefully worded and defended by a consistent appeal to the authority of the Bible. If read fully, it gives all Christians an expression of their common ground, not only with Catholics who obey the see of Peter, but also with each other in the face of a world growing ever more hostile to the very notion of Christianity as a missionary religion.

It gives us a strong word of encouragement to resist the demand—heard as loudly from many church leaders as from the secular world—that we drop our exclusive and universal claim of salvation in Christ, and that we both halt and condemn our own mission to the nations. It presents a needed apologetic at a time when rather vocal church leaders have decided that we have no right to convert people to Christ, and favor political correctness and multiculturalism over faithfulness to Christ and his Great Commission that we make disciples.

By appealing to Scripture, Dominus Iesus gives to all Christians, certainly including the Protestant Evangelicals, reason to study its contents for their own edification. It refers to the scriptural teaching as being “without error.” Evangelicals and fundamentalists can rejoice over the faith expressed in the truth taught by the Scripture, especially on the essential matters of faith in Christ. The document speaks simply and plainly of the inspiration of Scripture by saying that these books “have God as their author.”

On one of my weekly radio broadcasts I read a large portion of the document. Many of the listeners to the station were Evangelicals, quite appreciative of the document’s emphasis on the statement of St. Peter: “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name given under heaven among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).” Apparently the disappointment of the morning for some people was that this powerful affirmation of Bible truth had come from the Vatican.

Also, it is of no small consequence that the document quotes the Nicene/Constantinopolitan Creed without the controversial filioque. (The filioque is the addition of “and the Son” to “proceedeth from the Father” in the article on the Holy Spirit.) It has never been acceptable to the Orthodox Church, and its use in the West has caused contention for centuries. This was a clear gesture of respect and conciliation intended for the Orthodox.

Neglected Opportunity
Dominus Iesus received undeserved bad press. Treating all Christians, and indeed all people, in accord with their inherent dignity—a dignity that requires that one be honest when one thinks others are in error—it has, nonetheless, been characterized as unecumenical, triumphalistic, and insensitive. This is a very great shame. At the very least, it ought to be studied for its profound defense of the gospel and the mission of the Church.

Dominus Iesus has been a very neglected opportunity for all Christians to forge stronger ties with each other and to study the meaning of our shared mission to the nations as believers in the same Christ.

An Imprimatur

Archbishop Mark Haverland, Metropolitan of the Original Province of the Anglican Catholic Church, has told me he fully supports the post below, More on Alleged Donatism, and has given permission to note this approval publicly.

Now It's Official

The following report was written by Auburn Faber Traycik. I have been sitting on this until it appeared on Virtue Online

JUST WEEKS after an Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) bishop voiced serious frustration with longstanding divisions in the mainstream Continuing Church, he and nearly all parishes and clergy of his diocese have left the APCK for the Anglican Church in America (ACA). In a July 23 letter lamenting the APCK's failure to advance dialogue begun with the ACA and another leading Continuing body, the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), a few years ago, Eastern States Bishop Rocco Florenza told new APCK Archbishop James Provence that 12 of the 14 congregations in the eastern diocese are realigning with the ACA, and that he is going with them...

See the rest here.

Bishop Florenza's letter to the bishops of the Province of Christ the King:

Dear Archbishop Provence:

This letter is to advise you and bishops Wiygul and Morrison that I have received notification that the following parishes and missions within my diocese have elected to separate from the Province of Christ the King and have affiliated with the Anglican Church in America , a body of faithful, traditional Anglicans with whom we are in communion:

1. Anglican Church of the Resurrection, Ansonia, CT
2. Anglican Church of the Ascension, Manchester, CT
3. Holy Apostles Anglican Church, Peewaukee, WI
4. Saint Mary the Virgin Anglican Church, Liverpool, N.Y.
5. Saint Alban's Anglican Church, State College, PA
6. Saint Mark's Anglican Church, Benton, KY
7. Saint Anne's Anglican Church, Columbus, OH
8. Saint Paul's Anglican Mission, Crystal Lake, IL
9. Saint Matthew's Anglican Mission, Custer, WI
10. All Souls Anglican Mission, Schylerville, N.Y.
11. Saint Michael's Anglican Mission, Albany, N.Y.
12. Saint Therese Anglican Mission, Washington, N.J.

In charity and in accordance with the standing practice of the Province, I have exercised my authority as bishop ordinary to dispense them from the canons pertaining to the departure of parishes from this body. As well, I have issued letters dimissory to the clergy of those parishes and missions so that they may affiliate with the Anglican Church in America without interruption to their respective ministries and work for Christ

I have not granted these requests lightly, but after much prayer and reflection on the needs of the people and clergy under my pastoral care and on the future of Christ’s church as it is found in the traditional Anglican expression. I believe that I can do nothing less and remain true to Scripture, tradition and the foundational principles of our movement.

I have been a member of the clergy of this Province since its inception. Now, as a bishop. I must say that I no longer believe that it is possible to remain divided from those with whom we share the same Apostolic origins, the same theology and the same Sacraments. As stated in my recent pastoral letter to my diocese, such division stands in contradiction to the will of Christ, has been a stumbling block to our work for Him in the world, and has inflicted damage on the witness of the traditional Anglican expression. Our clergy recognize this, and, more importantly, our lay people well-know the cost of a fragmented witness. This was the reason for such great hope over our meetings in Fond du Lac two years past, and cause for such great disappointment when our Province, which had convened those meetings, did not move forward to build on that moment.

A community truly centered on Christ present in the Sacrament cannot be closed in upon itself, as though it were somehow self-sufficient; rather it must strive for harmony with other catholic communities. We cannot erect artificial barriers to the unity of the church based on old wounds and particularized views of communion based on those past events. We are called as the people of God to press forward together, to press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Accordingly, I have requested that I be received into the Anglican Church in America, together with the people and clergy of the parishes and missions named above, to serve them as a pastor and bishop for such time as God allows me to so to do. This request has been granted and is effective this 23rd day of July, in the year of Our Lord 2007.

In Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Rocco A. Florenza

Two Perspectives, From Inside and Outside

Crow can be a healthy dish.

In previous postings I presented the subject of the 2004 pilgimage to Fond du Lac, knowing exactly and only what we were supposed to see from inside the Province of Christ the King. I have stated rather boldy that position as fact. Having received better information, I am aware that the ACC had made clear their position ahead of time to (now retired) Archbishop Morse, and that this information did not go further as it should have (I know that Bishop Florenza was not informed at all, and expected the ACC bishops to receive alongside the others). The picture is very clear, and what happened was a case of manipulation. Throughout the APCK, the whole affair was chalked up to having learned from experience the bitter lesson: There is no point in trying to unify the jurisdictions. I am sorry to say, I do not think that was an accident.

This does not mean that I have reversed my view that the ACA should be treated as a full partner in going forward to promote unity in the Continuing Church. Neither does it reverse my position that the ACC needs to beware of further manipulation in coming to the aid of the APCK for a temporary new relationship that is really meant to further isolate the ACA because of Bishop Rocco Florenza and his diocese. But, I know that progress will not be made without discussion that involves theological clarity, and goodwill from all concerned, both the ACC and the TAC-ACA. I have seen, very recently, a very different attitude in very significant men in the ACC. It is different from what has been presented locally by a few priests, and what was presented in rather harsh and rigid comments by one priest on this blog (very much the opposite of our own Fr. Kirby, who has consistently represented the ACC intelligently, and charitably).

However, with a new Archbishop in the APCK, that jurisdisdiciton should cease to be, to a very unfortunate degree, too much of a personality cult. But, will they become truly collegial? The exclusion of Bishop Florenza from the voting process is disturbing; however, that was done by the retired Archbishop. Again, it pains me to speak this way, because I have had only affection and respect for the retired Archbishop as well as for the new one, having enjoyed our few times when we met face to face, and when I spoke to Archbishop Morse over the phone on several occasions. And, I do not want to detract from the good things he has accomplished, including his very effective personal evangelism as a college chaplain on the very difficult Berkeley campus.


Bishop Florenza has not had an easy time making his decisions, and did not come to them rashly or quickly. Much will be made of his comments about unity, and I know in advance that people will write comments calling the whole matter into question. However, I believe that his conclusion is valid; he does not see any possible way to work toward unity strictly from within the APCK unless the habits of decades are unlearned. Furthermore, he must act as a shepherd to protect those under his care from harm, and this protection has proved, over and over, to be very difficult to give, sometimes impossible, strictly within the APCK.

From the archives

In light of current discussions, or at least recent discussions, I believe it would be useful to refer to a much earlier posting by Fr. Kirby. The sanity and reason of this piece demonstrates that among the ACC there are voices far more ready to seek reconciliation than may be seen in some of the comments of late. In this post, our brother has put forth a genuinely Catholic point of view seasoned with the classic Anglican temperment that makes room for right reason. Fr. Kirby's post is a far superior kind of thinking to the rigid apparent Donatism of certain others who, based on a view that is fully debatable and dubious, presume to lay down a claim to jurisdiction as if that alone settles everything. Such a claim presumes trust, even when it has not been earned; it presumes agreement of fact, and therefore willful sin, without any evidentiary basis.

The balance must exist between holding firm to principles and compassion. Furthermore, charity becomes an empty word if we are unwilling to hear each other out, and consider another point of view. Unity, without truth, is evil; this is why God scattered the people at the Tower of Babel. The unity of Christians is based on truth, and is accomplished only as a result of the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost; and we must keep this unity in the bond of peace.

I refer also to an even earlier post- of sorts, older than the whole internet. It is a quotation from a post, a letter, by Saint Paul the Apostle:

"...by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. "

Galatians 5:13-15

Letter from New APCK Archbishop

The following pastoral letter from the new archbishop of the Anglican Province of Christ the King, the Most Revd James E. Provence, was published on the APCK website. Notice the absence of any mention of seeking unity with the Anglican Church in America.

The Clergy and People of the Province

Dearly Beloved Brethren,

The Feast of St. Peter this year was one of historical significance for the Anglican Province of Christ the King. On that day, in the cathedral church dedicated to Peter, the fisherman who became a fisher of men, Robert Sherwood Morse handed over apostolic responsibility for the clergy and people of the APCK to his successor, James Eugene Provence. To underscore the sacramental character of the office of archbishop, the election took place at the offertory of the Mass. Following the announcement of the new archbishop, the Mass continued, reminding us that without Christ, our work is in vain.

After the Liturgy, many clergy and laity approached Archbishop Morse to offer their thanks for his nearly thirty years of leadership and for giving us an orderly succession.

The election of the Second Archbishop is also a fitting tribute to the courage of Bishop Albert Chambers who entrusted us with the Apostolic Ministry. Acknowledging that trust, your bishops are committed to increased efforts toward unity with the other two branches that spring directly from the root of the Chambers Succession: the Anglican Catholic Church and the United Episcopal Church, North America. We believe that any progress toward unity must begin at that source.

While unity is an important goal, the primary responsibility of bishops is to feed the flock of Christ with the Word of God and the sacraments of the Church. This is the commission given to Peter, to the rest of the Apostles and to the bishops in their direct succession. Aware of this solemn responsibility, it is our commitment to continue leading this branch of Christ's Church in this most holy mission.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

The Most Rev. James E. Provence

ACA Responds to Florenza

The following was published on July 11 in The Messenger, the newspaper of the Traditional Anglican Communion:

IN a Pastoral Letter recently read to parishes and missions of the Anglican Province of Christ the King's (APCK) Diocese of the Eastern States, Bishop Rocco Florenza pledged increased “cooperation and fellowship” and declared “a state of genuine unity and full communion” with the Anglican Church in America. In response, the following statement has been issued by Bishop George Langberg, speaking for the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America:

“We rejoice at the news that this significant step toward the greater unity of the Church has been taken by Bishop Florenza and others. We join our brother in Christ in proclaiming that we are in full and unimpaired communion with each other, and we are committed to working with him toward the vision our Lord expressed for His Church in John 17 – that we might be one, as He and the Father are One. Our hope and prayer is that our work together may inspire others to set aside man-made divisions and come together in fulfillment of Christ's explicit Divine Will for His Church.”

When asked to explain what shape Bishop Florenza's “genuine unity” and the ACA bishops' “working together” would take, Bishop Langberg referred to the “form follows function” principle of architecture and engineering, saying, “We first need to focus on getting everyone on both sides thoroughly committed to following our Lord's clearly-expressed will for His Church. Once we all thus agree on what we are determined to do, we can address the issue of how to make it happen, in full confidence that if we trust in the Lord, He will direct our paths.”

Archbishop John-Charles on Unity

The following open letter from the Most Revd John-Charles, retired archbishop and metropolitan of the Anglican Catholic Church, has just been published on the ACC's new and very much improved website:

To all Bishops of Churches Adhering to the Affirmation of St. Louis

In the love of Christ and with all fraternal respect.

Brethren,

It has become a matter of urgency to me that I write to you concerning unity among Continuing Anglicans. As age wearies and I find my physical faculties diminishing, I am constantly reminded that there is less time ahead of me than behind me.

While I am now retired and no longer a Bishop Ordinary, it remains the case that by year of consecration I am the senior bishop of the Continuing Churches. This is no cause for pride or self-assertion, but I do feel that it lays upon me the responsibility of doing whatever I can in the time left to me to break down barriers between us, foster concord and repair communion.

What divides us?

Is it dogma or doctrine? Surely not, for we are all committed to the Affirmation, which in turn commits us, not to yet another confessional statement in the history of the Church, but to Scripture as interpreted by Holy Tradition, that is the Consensus Patrum and the Seven Ecumenical Councils common to East and West. Is there any dispute among us as to the great and foundational dogmas of the Creed, summarizing the eternal Gospel? Do any of us deny the doctrines of Apostolic Succession, Eucharistic Sacrifice, or the Real Presence? Do any of us reject the truth of traditional Catholic teaching on prayer for the dead, the invocation of
Saints, or the Blessed Virgin's divine maternity, perpetual virginity, immaculacy and present glory? Indeed, is there any element of the Faith we would vainly wish to filter out in the name of private interpretation, presuming to "correct" the Church Universal? Are any of us "cafeteria Catholics"?

If the answer to these questions is no, as it must be among those who lay claim to the Affirmation of St. Louis, then the way is open to reconciliation. However, there are some critics of the Affirmation that have claimed to see some customary Anglican ambiguity in it.

I would contend that their interpretation is strained and uncharitable, but let us deal with it, nonetheless.

The Affirmation states that we witness to Tradition as an "essential principle" in the following terms: 'The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by "the ancient catholic bishops and doctors," and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.' Some have said that the phrase be-ginning with the word "exclusion" qualifies in an open-ended way our acceptance of Tradition, as if we were saying, "We accept Tradition, except for the parts we deem heretical." Of course, this is hardly the natural reading, and the phrase in fact refers to ancient errors condemned by the Councils rather than any purportedly set forth by them, as implied by the reference to the Vincentian Canon earlier in the Affirmation.

Nevertheless, our assurance of this does not rest on the Affirmation alone. And it is here that our early history, despite its many false steps, mutual misunderstandings and mis-communications, despite its being marred by human frailty and pride, can provide both clarification and a common foundation.

For at the 1978 Dallas Synod, even amongst confusion and acrimony, while the Continuers were still one and newly renamed the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), a Solemn Declaration and Preamble to the Constitution were agreed to. The Preamble says, inter alia, 'This Church ... accepts as binding and unalterable the received Faith and Traditions of the Church, ... as set forth in the Holy Scriptures; the ... Creeds; the writings of the "ancient Catholic Bishops and Doctors"; and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church' [emphasis added].

Thus, barring heretical statements elsewhere in the nascent ACC's formularies, of which there were none claimed by anyone, we see that at this point the die was cast and Continuers had formally ratified unambiguously their Catholic identity and epistemology. Henceforth, whatever imperfections may have existed in the Constitution and Canons, and whatever personal errors may have later caused some individuals to advocate protestant, minimalist positions or sow discord in other ways, the ACC was irrevocably and undeniably a Catholic jurisdiction.

Therefore, it cannot be claimed that division has occurred for fundamentally theological reasons, as the only justification for separation over matters of faith is if one of the bodies formally embraces heresy. That this is not the case according to those who left the ACC is proven by the fact that there were later Episcopal co-consecrations involving them and ACC bishops. Such shared acts are inconceivable without mutual admission of orthodoxy, as is admitted by all.

And so we come back to the question, what divides us?

Is it liturgical churchmanship? Hardly, for all our jurisdictions contain many parishes which use the Missal and some which prefer the simpler BCP Mass, the latter being in our eyes no less Catholic due to its simplicity than is Novus Ordo. Is it differences in standards of discipline? Unlikely, since all of our Churches aim for high standards but must admit to having licensed, ordained, or even consecrated men who we have belatedly discovered to be of questionable character or stability.

Many years ago, I was asked in a public forum if I could explain how Christians in general had come to be so divided. I rose, went to the microphone and said one word: "Sin." I believe this answer also holds the key to our present state of disunity.

Yet I am far from implying that the fault lies only with those who have left the ACC. An unbiased investigation of our history as Continuing Anglicans does not allow any of us to escape blame. Nor do I wish to pretend that every division or schism has been due solely to clashes of personality, power-seeking or trivialities.

No, all of us must frankly examine ourselves and admit where we may have failed the tests of charity or straightforwardness. We must also all remember that, in the absence of a solution to the initial ECUSA descent into heresy authorized and imposed "from above", Continuers were forced to solve the problem themselves by voluntary association. While this was unavoidable in the emergency situation they faced, and thus actions normally impermissible and irregular were covered by the doctrine of economy, there can be no doubt that such a beginning made later divisions
much easier. (It may well be that only by re-establishing communion with other branches of the Catholic Church, and so making ourselves more directly accountable to a wider Communion, will this flaw that was present ab initio be overcome.) And we must face up to the one issue of genuine substance that remains to keep us separate.

I refer to our different policies on the limits of communio in sacris. While this is not an area of difference in dogma strictly speaking, it is an important area of what we might call "applied ecclesiology" that makes closer relations difficult by its very nature. It has become increasingly clear to us in the ACC that the only way for those Catholic traditionalists still in the Anglican Communion to be fully faithful to their beliefs is to make a clean and public break with it.

Vague statements about "impaired communion" are not enough: public, clear, and complete repudiation of heresy and sacramental communion with heterodox Anglican provinces is what is required at the very least. Better still, all except unavoidable historic association with the Canterbury crew should be rejected. Rather than encouraging those left in the mire to retain some attachment to it, we must confront them with the need to make a choice.

Quite apart from questions of sacramental integrity, there is the matter of providing an honest witness to the world. Similarly, it is surely important that Continuing Anglican Churches which can lay claim to the doctrinal heritage of the Affirmation and the jurisdictional continuity of the "Chambers Succession" avoid establishing full communion with bodies of vagantes or heterodox origins until we are quite sure, with moral certainty, that these bodies have abandoned earlier errors and, if necessary, had their Orders regularised.

I beg that as fellow Pastors of the flock we set our house in order, discuss and overcome any theological differences that might remain, make the necessary apologies and present a unified and forthright position to Anglicans who remain in the chaos.

My own experience, having remained in ECUSA longer than was tolerable, assures me that providing them an escape route back to the Church is our duty. Leaving them where they are is simply not an option.

Yours in Christ,

Archbishop John-Charles, F.O.D.C.
The Province of The Anglican Catholic Church