tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post2943386552744790940..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: But, Did You Mean It?Fr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-71470667489832929292009-12-17T10:55:12.686-05:002009-12-17T10:55:12.686-05:00Mark VA wrote: "Ten years of [Queen Elizabet...Mark VA wrote: "Ten years of [Queen Elizabeth I's] rule, without her being excommunicated - a rather long time. Like I said before, things of this nature don't like to be rushed."<br /><br />Certainly not. Nor was the real purpose of her excommunication rushed in the slightest; was it the Spanish who first said "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold"? <br /><br />For that excommunication in 1570 was simply part of the groundwork for what went down in history as the Spanish Armada -- but which, while planned in 1570, did not actually get under way until 1588!<br /><br />Perhaps that delay was merely 16th Century Spanish bureaucratic inefficiency (remember, Philip's family ruled in Vienna, where the word "Schlamperei" was invented) or perhaps it was a sly way of distancing a crassly political act from its real motivation. <br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85322961013615761432009-12-17T01:18:54.441-05:002009-12-17T01:18:54.441-05:00Especially as she as guilty of being Anne Boleyn&#...Especially as she as guilty of being Anne Boleyn's daughter, which was the real issue with the Spanish masters who ruled the Pope.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-42743486706520640272009-12-15T16:10:50.531-05:002009-12-15T16:10:50.531-05:00From the Roman perspective:
Father Hart:
This is...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />Father Hart:<br /><br />This is such old history – Elizabeth’s Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity (AD 1559), and her subsequent excommunication about ten years later (Regnans in Excelsis, AD 1570). Ten years of her rule, without her being excommunicated - a rather long time. <br /><br />Like I said before, things of this nature don't like to be rushed.Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-68939125745344020312009-12-15T01:31:52.035-05:002009-12-15T01:31:52.035-05:00Yes, I know. You saw Henry VIII as dissolving the ...Yes, I know. You saw Henry VIII as dissolving the bonds with the papacy; but, the Pope dissolved bonds with the C of E when Elizabeth I (three monarchs later, though but one generation later) was on the throne. My 1936 reference shows how exactly Henry's ideal was turned around on the throne itself.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3046168219826547112009-12-14T22:03:54.540-05:002009-12-14T22:03:54.540-05:00From the Roman perspective:
All right Father Hart...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />All right Father Hart, you got me (I think) -please consider my previous post as nutterly void. <br /><br />But seriously, I was thinking of the bonds with the Papacy, not those of king Henry VIII.Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90081628785828960322009-12-14T17:34:25.413-05:002009-12-14T17:34:25.413-05:00Mark VA seems to be making the usual Roman Catholi...Mark VA seems to be making the usual Roman Catholic "gotcha" point in an almost subtle way. In fact, the Church of England established no new Church at all, and the beginning of the break from Rome that lasted was not during the reign of Henry VIII, but that of Elizabeth I (have you RC fellows ever heard of Mary Tudor?). As for the C of E and divorce, when the king wanted to marry a divorced woman in 1936, he had to abdicate the throne inasmuch as he was, in effect, excommunicating himself.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50357578765968485162009-12-14T17:06:22.532-05:002009-12-14T17:06:22.532-05:00From the Roman perspective:
Poetreader:
Your tho...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />Poetreader:<br /><br />Your thoughts on divorce are spot on. With that in mind, however, please note that during the Reformation in England it also took some time for the dissolution of certain bonds to be accomplished, and for a new religious identity to be articulated to the people. <br /><br />It seems that these things are inherently messy, and take on a life span of their own.Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32908421687964916782009-12-14T10:13:26.329-05:002009-12-14T10:13:26.329-05:00Agreed, but it still needs to be pointed out that ...Agreed, but it still needs to be pointed out that the muddle, when it does exist, is inevitably doing a great deal of harm of its own. Those caught in such a muddle do need to be reminded that it needs to be resolved as soon as possible, not only for their own good, but for the good of those around them. In short, such a muddled situation may have to be tolerated, and muddled souls need to be treated with compassion, but a muddle is not a good thing and there is good reason for seeking to resolve it quickly.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27433976576170945202009-12-14T09:48:25.373-05:002009-12-14T09:48:25.373-05:00In response to a reader who said that he could not...In response to a reader who said that he could not understand why folks don't do the right thing, that is go or don't go, I suggested that humans do not always or often act in this way. There is usually a muddle, and since we are not simply creatures of reason and logic but flesh and blood, it can take time to sort through the competing claims of ideas and feelings, hopes and hurts, illusion and disillusionment. <br /><br />Some have not patience for muddle, especially when they see things so clearly and act in big, decisive ways.<br /><br />I did not mean to suggest that the muddle is right, just that it is what it is - and that while to be exasperated by the muddle of others is only to be expected by the brisk intellects on-line, surely the brisk should cultivate a bit more imagination in understanding the muddled.Священник селаhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08182325210748920363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19932660693275621662009-12-14T09:15:15.357-05:002009-12-14T09:15:15.357-05:00I agree that Andrew's post is of charitable in...I agree that Andrew's post is of charitable intent, but it falls far short of the heart of the matter.<br /><br />You see, in the case of divorce, the moral theology is clearcut. Regardless of the gravity of the reason behind it, Divorce is the breaking of a most solemn vow, the rending apart of a bond that God himself has made. The weakness of humanity makes such a horrible choice often appear to be inevitable, and we, in our kindness, tend to look for ways to say that it is OK. It's not. Objectively speaking it is always sin. While God knows (and His Church speaking for Him recognizes) the weakness of humanity and our propensity to sin, he does forgive, The Cross stands before us and the Sacraments are given to proclaim and administer this very forgiveness; but still sin is sin, and, though forgiven, is never endorsed. Attempting to apply this model to the current controversies is fraught with logical and moral perils.<br /><br />Yes, Andrew, your intent is appreciated: we do need to approach these serious decisions with understanding, patience, and gentleness. Both sides have been expressing a lot of judgment and anger, and have been disparaging one another in rather uncharitable terms, and somehow that needs to end, but the issues are still clear, and there still is something decidedly discomforting about the stance of those who seek to join a church that claims their orders to be void and yet remain comfortable with continuing to exercise them where they still are.<br /><br />All I can see is that this breech of unity should never happen. There is a breaking of vows involved, a dissolution of bonds I believe to have been brought about by God. But there is perhaps a bit more in this image: It has often happened that a husband seeking divorce continues to live with his wife, continues the appearance of a marriage he is already denying, and yet carries on a romance with another woman. If his mind is made up, and the separation is already decided, would it not be better for him to do it quickly than to prolong the pain of pretence?<br /><br />I'm not being bitter or dismissive in urging those who are decided in favor of AC to get on with it quickly, and in the meantime to make a clean break. I do urge, however, for their own good (as they place their own conscience in a difficult position), for the good of those of us who will continue (as our work is being distracted by all this controversy), and for the good of the unbelievers around us (who are certainly neither edified nor drawn by all the bitterness and confusion of this "muddle") - that they end the appearance of wavering and of double loyalty and get on with it as quickly as possible.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52631710329272029372009-12-14T04:42:39.204-05:002009-12-14T04:42:39.204-05:00From the Roman perspective:
Andrew:
Your post is...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />Andrew:<br /><br />Your post is charitable and probably closest to the heart of the matter.Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9734225286910199472009-12-13T23:23:39.046-05:002009-12-13T23:23:39.046-05:00I thought "muddle" was a Can'twebury...I thought "muddle" was a Can'twebury-it charism.<br /><br />alanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1545760732268785142009-12-13T21:04:26.144-05:002009-12-13T21:04:26.144-05:00I guess that is supposed to mean something.I guess that is supposed to mean something.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23536963058732940742009-12-13T19:18:50.794-05:002009-12-13T19:18:50.794-05:00I remain entirely unclear how someone, claiming to...<i> I remain entirely unclear how someone, claiming to hold to the fullness of the Roman Catholic faith, can continue to dress and practice as an Anglican priest or bishop rather than immediately and unconditionally submit to Rome. </i><br /><br />Well, perhaps this something like a marriage on the rocks. Sometimes it seems clear that it can't go on, that it is intolerable. At other times there seems some hope. And then there are the children - surely we ought to play for time, for their benefit? But then someone else says it is better to the children to be frank and to clear the air and not subject them to a sham. Should we stay and pretend? Should we go and deal with whatever happens as it happens? Further, for the couple it isn't always pretence. That weekend we spent in the country last month - it seemed that we were really back together as we once were. Yesterday was hell. It is a muddle, the messages are not clear, it can't be reduced to a simple binary logic: go, no go. Sometimes it is a go and mostly it is a muddle. There are surely many Anglicans who feel that their relation to some form of Anglicanism is rather like this, especially if they feel that they have been betrayed.<br /><br />I am not arguing in favour of staying or leaving, only suggesting that those who have mapped out their position in such clear and uncertain terms don't seem to take into account the admittedly exasperating human muddle.Священник селаhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08182325210748920363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80214860958700841722009-12-13T18:59:47.343-05:002009-12-13T18:59:47.343-05:00I would be cautious with the label "hypocrite...I would be cautious with the label "hypocrite". A person can be honestly wrong, even honestly self-contradictory -- still wrong, but at least honest. There's plenty of criticism to be made on the facts without the need to judge motivations. <br /><br />That said, though I am prepared to believe that many or most of those preparing to leave are entirely convinced of the consistency of their position (though I have trouble figuring out how they got there), and am perfectly willing to concider them honest and upright; I continue to believe their conclusions wrong, and continue to urge, for their own good and for ours, that the move they desire to make be made very quickly. A house divided against itself cannot stand.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70329187569446525372009-12-13T16:37:15.983-05:002009-12-13T16:37:15.983-05:00Whether property, stipend or not, I think the hono...Whether property, stipend or not, I think the honorable thing to do is to act on one's convictions; especially if that be a clergyman or Bishop who serves a flock. <br /><br />Let each make his intention known so that we all may adjust without confusion or ill will. But go or stay, do it so that all can get on with the task given to us. <br /><br />If you believe the AC is your tonic then take it. If not so be it. What purpose does the shepherd serve if he has (or seems to have) no idea where the pasture is?<br /><br />Declare your intent; provide for those you leave behind; direct those that are going. Why should there be any delay if one has conviction! <br /><br />AlanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77751805757948663642009-12-13T00:40:23.500-05:002009-12-13T00:40:23.500-05:00Anonymous:
I think Fr. Gregory's hypothetical...Anonymous:<br /><br />I think Fr. Gregory's hypothetical question was really about those who urge a Tiber swim, and then say "wait till we give the word."Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-91275756577864945602009-12-12T20:48:46.365-05:002009-12-12T20:48:46.365-05:00"Fr. Gregory said: Is this essentially about ..."Fr. Gregory said: Is this essentially about stipends and property?<br /><br />I think you hit the nail right square on the head there, Fr. Gregory."<br /><br />Yes, why risk it all on a move to Rome. Stay safely where you are. But if you do go - go now. As far as some of us are concerned, now is not fast enough. If you don't go now at the urging of this blog you are a hypocrite!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75706322228457952402009-12-12T19:15:25.873-05:002009-12-12T19:15:25.873-05:00Fr. Gregory said: Is this essentially about stipe...Fr. Gregory said: Is this essentially about stipends and property?<br /><br />I think you hit the nail right square on the head there, Fr. Gregory.Fr. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869676716891199486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80155488901054918812009-12-12T15:46:37.254-05:002009-12-12T15:46:37.254-05:00As an Orthodox priest, I have been watching the An...As an Orthodox priest, I have been watching the Anglicanorum Coetibus development from, as it were, a distance. But parts of the discussions remind me of the not infrequent conversations I have had in the past ten years with some Anglican clergymen. They have told me, for example, that if women are ordained or if women are made bishops they will become Orthodox. My response is and has always been: either you are converted to Orthodoxy or you are not, what the Anglican Church does or does not do is utterly irrelevant. Conversion is not some sort of ecclesiastical insurance policy to be claimed on later, a “lifeboat” option in response to unacceptable situations. And, by the way, if you are converted to Orthodoxy in your heart and mind - from that very moment you must cease to appear as, practice as or claim to be an Anglican priest or, indeed, an Anglican. I remain entirely unclear how someone, claiming to hold to the fullness of the Roman Catholic faith, can continue to dress and practice as an Anglican priest or bishop rather than immediately and unconditionally submit to Rome. Putting aside the question of Anglican orders, surely it is fraud to appear as an Anglican while actually being (even if not formally) a Roman Catholic? Is this essentially about stipends and property?Fr Gregorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-16306788362634811352009-12-12T15:34:35.312-05:002009-12-12T15:34:35.312-05:00Rome believes its own propaganda, and its own doct...Rome believes its own propaganda, and its own doctrines (deriving the first from the second). In their view, they can be patient and hope that Anglicans will become true Catholics, and see their own efforts as missionary and evangelistic (insulting to us, but sincere nonetheless). They cannot urge haste, therefore, since they assume that would drive away potential converts. So, we are not engaging Rome in these essays.<br /><br /><b>This is a game, and the game is poker.</b> Those who claim to believe in the teachings of <i>The Catechism of the [Roman] Catholic Church</i> have already declared their belief in an entire doctrinal system. That system teaches that anyone who knows that the "fullness" is in "the Catholic Church (as they define "the catholic Church") united under the Successor of Peter" and yet remains outside of her, is in mortal sin and in danger of damnation. For, it is no longer a matter of "invincible ignorance." Yes, that is RC teaching (as if you didn't know).<br /><br /><b>Therefore, our hand is played by calling the bluff of Abps. Hepworth and Falk,</b> and all who have followed them this far. How dare they endanger the souls of people for whom they have created a dilemma of conscience (which dilemma did not exist when they were happy to be Anglicans)? They have led people to a conclusion about nothing less than their own salvation (if they really believe the Roman Catechism they signed), but themselves stand in the gateway to let no one pass. <br /><br />I am aware of Abp. Hepworth's ability to keep this going on for years and years more, telling people all kinds of esoteric rubbish that sounds wise to their uneducated ears. He is a master of that craft.<br /><br />The anonymous Anonymous (a.A.) wrote:<br /><br /><i>All the TAC leadership has done since the release of the AC is to urge patience and charity. They have repeatedly assured folks that further clarification is forthcoming.</i><br /><br />In the words of Doctor Who (#4), answering the truism, "See here, Doctor, a little patience goes a long way," he replied, "True, but too much patience goes absolutely nowhere." I begin to believe that urging of patience in this matter has become a strategy designed for just that purpose-to go absolutely nowhere. Otherwise, why would anyone still be promising, in the words of the a.A., "further clarification." <br /><br />"They have repeatedly assured folks that further clarification is forthcoming." Really? No one in Rome has confirmed this rumor, no one at all. It is quite apparent that Rome has said all that they care to say. To the petition of the TAC in 2007, the obvious answer is "No." That is, "You cannot be in full corporate communion with the See of Rome unless you convert. We will give you the Personal Ordinariate to make it easier for your clergy to enter the Pastoral Provisions, and extension of the 'Anglican' Use, but don't expect much more." <br /><br />The fact that a TAC apologist even mentions "further clarification" is a bluff, no doubt a sincerely related bluff that has worked on him. To Abps. Hepworth and Falk, and others, we are saying, <i>Lay your cards on the table.</i> Urging too much patience, and promising further clarification, is all one big bluff.<br /><br />(When the time is ripe we will have more to say about priorities and missionary work.)Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-18770823013222355642009-12-12T14:29:16.969-05:002009-12-12T14:29:16.969-05:00The completely anonymous Anonymous wrote,
1. &qu...The completely anonymous Anonymous wrote,<br /><br />1. "'Why does the "hurry up and go' litany appeal to so many on this blog? Why are you in such a hurry for the TAC to go?"<br /><br />Actually, not only are most of us not in a hurry for the TAC to plunge into the Tiber, but we don't think it is going to do so. What we do think will happen is that most TAC bishops, a portion of the TAC clergy, and probably relatively few of its laity will desert the TAC and go over to Rome.<br /><br />Schisms are always painful so it is best for the health and well-being of all concerned to get that over and done with as soon as can be, so, at least for those who have been left behind, the healing and rebuilding process can begin as rapidly as possible.<br /><br />The present situation, in which the TAC struggles with internal divisions and its people feel "neither fish nor fowl" can be good for no one.<br /><br />2. "Is it that the longer the process take and the more details become available, the better the people understand the intent of the Pope in the AC and the less your arguments against the AC matter?"<br /><br />No, we are quite confident that, the longer the process takes and the more details that become available, the better the people will understand that the Pope (the Roman one, mind you) meant precisely what he told his representatives to say.<br /><br />3. "[W]on’t those whom you have cajoled into remaining 'continuers' blame you for their missed opportunity?"<br /><br />Would that we had as much influence as this Anonymous credits us with. But we don't, so all we can do is suggest considerations that people engaged in conscientious consideration may take into account.<br /><br />As for any "missed opportunity", the opportunity to covert to Roman Catholicism always exists. Nor, now that this Apostolic Constitution has been promulgated, will it likely be withdrawn. So anyone who decides to stay in the TAC and who later regrets that decision can always follow its former leadership over the jumps and through the ditches to the Roman finish line.<br /><br />Rome will not punish them for having come later rather than sooner. <br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55827353703630073082009-12-12T11:19:59.092-05:002009-12-12T11:19:59.092-05:00"Do you mean to say that all the time I thoug..."Do you mean to say that all the time I thought I was receiving the body and blood of Christ I was actually receiving bread and wine?"<br /><br />That is the question that must be going through the minds of TAC/ACA laity at this moment.<br /><br />Are we saying to TAC/ACA laity, get out now!? No, we are not. The message of "give it up, let it go!," is aimed at the clergy, especially the bishops, who should know better.<br /><br />Here is the matter, If I know that my orders are valid then my submission to absolute ordination would be an act of blasphemy, or as some would have it, sacrilege. The ACA bishops and some clergy seem to rationalize this by saying that the unity of the Church trumps any consideration of this fact. Certainly Mr. Falk and Mr. Campese are aware that their own orders have always been valid ones, but they have already done this re-ordination thing once before, haven't they? So "let us do evil so that good may come," is their philosphy, at least concerning the sacrament of holy orders.<br /><br />This is why we ask, actually demand, that they take off their uniforms now. They have done a great disservice to their laity, contributed to the discrediting of the Anglican Continuum, and created a great scandal amongst us by the de facto renunciation of their Holy Orders. Why wait until the day that they receive their absolute Roman ones to renounce them de jure?<br /><br />Who are they kidding? Us, or just themselves?<br /><br />Oh, life without honor!Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56346153393119610922009-12-12T10:40:46.113-05:002009-12-12T10:40:46.113-05:00"Those who accept the Roman claims need to ma..."Those who accept the Roman claims need to make their move as quickly as they can, for their own spiritual welfare. By the same token, it would be putting ourselves in sever spiritual danger to pretend to accept what we cannot. A house divided against itself cannot stand."<br /><br />OK, but the TAC and its leadership's position have been known for years. It was publicized and confirmed in national synods well before the historic Portsmouth signing. There have been no changes made in this position. All the TAC leadership has done since the release of the AC is to urge patience and charity. They have repeatedly assured folks that further clarification is forthcoming. Why does this blog encourage a hurry-up-and-do-it approach now, when it did not do so prior to the AC’s release? <br /><br />The TAC leadership (representing their people) signed the CCC and made this statement regarding the Pope well before the present controversy:<br /><br />"We accept the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, which is a ministry of teaching and discerning the faith and a 'perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity' and understand this ministry is essential to the Church founded by Jesus Christ."<br /><br />Ed and Fr. Nalls, you are reasonable individuals so I cannot understand why only now you have decided to voice strong opposition to Rome’s offer before all of the details are know. I don’t understand the premature distrust you have regarding the promised clarifications both Bishops Hepworth and Falk have promised Rome will produce. I should have expected you both, rather than jumping to hasty and possibly injurious conclusions, to have taken a “wait and see” approach. Again, I see no need to hurry. Rome has not told anyone to hurry-up-and-do-it. The TAC bishops have not told anyone to hurry-up-and-do-it.<br /><br />Why are you so compelled to urge those who are willing to be patient to hurry-up-and-do-it?<br /><br />“If there is to be a separation, let it be done quickly, so we can all get on with our calling.”<br /><br />I see patience and charity as our calling in all Christian matters; nothing should be done in haste. And what else could be more beneficial to our calling than a united Catholic Church? Let us wait and see with all long-suffering and patience what it is that the Lord will do. Engendering strife and bitterness accomplishes nothing good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-89968383794348960692009-12-12T10:23:28.886-05:002009-12-12T10:23:28.886-05:00Does a wise father urge his child to walk up to th...Does a wise father urge his child to walk up to the edge of Niagara Falls?<br /><br />So you think going to Rome is like jumping the falls? Few have ever survived it, just consider all the Romanists who cannot turn away from looking back after leaving. They seem preoccupied at best.<br /><br />""Wouldn't it be better to view the AC with charity, hoping all things?"<br /><br /><br />I may be one of the few here but I see no charity in the call for Anglican Orders to be null and void. None. <br /><br />AlanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com