TAC ARCHBISHOP REPORTED ABOUT TO ANNOUNCE HIS RECEPTION AS A ROMAN CATHOLIC LAYMAN

The Rev. Canon John Hollister has sent the following:

Thanks to the sharp eyes of Fr. Larry Wells, who spotted on Fr. Anthony Chadwick’s blog, “The English Catholic”, an article which contained the link to the following report from “The Australian”:

“Archbishop John Hepworth to return to Catholic fold as Indian, not chief

“by:  Verity Edwards

“From:  The Australian

“November 25, 2011 9:33PM

“ARCHBISHOP John Hepworth will be forced to relinquish his role as the primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion if he is to reconcile with the Catholic Church, after being informed he will only be accepted as a layperson.

“Archbishop Hepworth has been notified by the Catholic Church that his bid to reunify the TAC with Rome has been successful,* but his own case is conditional.”

Downloaded 11/25/2011 from The Australian.

The accompanying information in Fr. Chadwick’s article adds further details, including that Abp. Hepworth was given this notice in an official letter from the Australian [Roman Catholic] Bishops’ Conference that was delivered to him by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne.  Apparently the reason given for this determination is Article 6, §2 of the “Complementary Norms” that are attached to Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, under which the new Anglican Ordinariates are to be organized.  This Section states that former Roman Catholic clergy who left that communion to become Anglicans will not be received back into the Roman Church as functioning clergy but will only be permitted to exercise the lay state.

On a number of occasions since Abp. Hepworth announced that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) would be engaging in a “corporate merger” with the Roman Catholic Communion (RCC), he stated that if it became necessary for the success of such a merger, he was prepared to resign his position as a bishop.  Based upon these assurances, it is understood that those TAC members who still support the TAC’s entry into an RCC Ordinariate expect Abp. Hepworth to continue leading them “across the Tibur” by shortly announcing his reception back into the RCC as a layman.
____________
* A strange use of the word "successful," since it has only attracted an underwhelming minority. - Fr. Hart

Anglican Journal.com reports

We, at The Continuum, won't say, "I told you so." We are above that sort of thing.

Vatican sees no future for married clergy in Anglican Ordinariate

By: Diana Swift
staff writer

---

Vatican sees no future for married clergy in Anglican Ordinariate. Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone pictured with Pope Benedict XVI. Photo: REUTERS/Max Rossi

Married priests will be only a temporary aberration within the Anglican Ordinariate, says Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s secretary of state. Speaking in an interview in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore  Romano, and in recently published extracts from his forthcoming book, A Great Heart: Homage to John Paul II, Bertone said that although already married Anglican priests will be acceptable under the ordinariate, “the enduring value of celibacy will be reaffirmed, necessitating that for the future, unmarried priests will be the norm in such ordinariates.” Until then, the procedures developed by Pope John Paul II for the reception of already married Anglican clergy will apply.

Cardinal Bertone added that Anglican clergy seeking full communion with the church of Rome should undergo training with “other diocesan seminarians, thereby ensuing them serious academic, pastoral and spiritual preparation. The acceptance of these Anglicans will be considered in the context of their allegiance to the doctrine and practices of the Catholic church.”

Whose Erastianism is it anyway?

Erastianism: The doctrine stating that in ecclesiastical affairs the state rules over the church.

One of the arguments that our Roman Catholic detractors like to make, every now and again, is that Anglicanism was simply an Erastian sect created because of Henry's divorce problems. Therefore, they reason, we are supposed to concede that the English Reformation was a bastard child, completely illegitimate, and that, for that reason among their many wild claims, we should all go back to Mama Rome with our tails between our legs, and beseech their indulgence to be allowed back.

Well, of course, it had to be Erastian, right? It was called, after all, the Church of England. Never mind that it had always been called that, and the kings of England had always appointed the bishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. Never mind that every church in Europe had been a State Church since before anyone could remember. Never mind that the pope's power to intervene was almost never used throughout the centuries leading up to the Reformation era, since wise popes had no cause to be entangled with various national affairs.

Two important considerations need to be weighed against the importance that Roman Catholic polemicists place upon the alleged expanded role of the monarch in English Church affairs. The first is the pastoral responsibility of the English bishops during the reigns of Henry and of Edward, and then during the reign of Elizabeth after the death of Bloody Mary (a title earned by the zeal and volume of persecution).

Whatever one may think about Henry's sexual troubles, or about his attempted solution to the problem of having a male heir, or about the violence he inflicted on those unfortunate enough to serve in his court, he was not the father of the English Reformation. The bishops who survived him, and found themselves serving under the young King Edward, rose to the occasion both before and after Henry's death. Whatever the king's motives, and whatever his methods, the bishops took the opportunity to establish doctrine according to their convictions, and nothing less.

True, it was under Edward's brief reign that they felt liberated to teach fully according to their convictions, and to establish Reformed doctrine without abandoning Catholic Order, striking that balance unique to the English Church. But even before that, the work of the English bishops was not based on the king's divorce problems, nor were those concerns particularly relevant to their pastoral work to teach the way of salvation to the people of England. After the martyrdom of Thomas Cranmer (a man we ought be calling, at least, Blessed) and, of course, so many others, when Elizabeth restored the Catholick Reformation to England, it was the pastoral work of English bishops that restored sound doctrine, and of other English scholars and theologians such as Richard Hooker.

The other important consideration is the simple reality that the Church of England was no more Erastian than the Church of the so-called Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V beginning in 1519, also called Carlos I in his role as King of Spain, which had begun in 1516. He was heir to the Hapsburg dynasty, and in his role as Holy Roman Emperor, if only to demonstrate his absolute power, he briefly imprisoned the Pope himself. This show of power did not go unnoticed, and remained a symbol of the real status quo as a late as the reign of King Phillip (which began in 1556). The papacy was no more a free institution, governed strictly by religious rather than state concern, than the See of Canterbury may have been on Henry's worst day.

Indeed, about Henry's desire for a divorce, a historian may be hard pressed to explain any real difference between what he wanted from the pope, and what the King of France had been granted. Later, concerning the reign of Elizabeth I, the pope was simply a pawn in the power struggle between two empires and their competing commercial interests, interests that led to the pope, in effect, demanding that the people of England weaken themselves by a civil war, murder their Queen, and let themselves be conquered by Spain. Even the mere legalese of our modern insurance industry would label the storm that sank the Armada, an "Act of God." Or, as the scripture says, "Even the wind and sea obey Him." (Mark 4:41)

If we are supposed to be impressed by the logic of our Roman Catholic critics, and to see some Erastian menace as having bastardized our Anglican foundations (for the sake of argument, let us pretend to concede), then the subservience of the papacy, that is, the subjugation of the See of Rome to the Spanish Crown, could have been no less Erastian in practice. Indeed, that subservience was transparent; it was blatantly obvious to all.

So, how important is the charge of English Erastianism? Should it be a practical concern to us? Should it shake our confidence as Anglicans? What matters for us, given the harsh times in which they found themselves, in a historical context that saw no such concept as Religious freedom (not, in any genuine sense, before the Constitution of the United States over two centuries later), was the responsible approach of the English Reformers, as men of God who rose to the occasion. The teaching and pastoral guidance of the Church of England produced a way forward into true and Catholick doctrine, complete with the Gospel proclaimed from its pulpits, and the sacraments administered at its altars.

From the archives

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; ( For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." (I John 1:1-4)

If God deceives the eyes and other senses by making something to appear as bread and wine that no longer has the substance thereof, both the Incarnation and eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection are called into question, and the Gospel is thereby renounced-no small matter.

Following my usual year-end wrap up new year look ahead essay, 2011, A comment by my older brother, Addison, created more of a stir than anything my younger brother has written all week (which is saying a lot). It included :

"Unless you know in your heart you can believe in such super-added dogmas as papal supremacy and infallibility (very late inventions), that Jesus did not need to possess 'faith' during his earthly years (to which I respond, was he or was he not fully human?), and that the bread and wine physically change into his body and blood during the Eucharist without any palpable evidence of it; unless you can believe in Mary's 'Immaculate Conception' (an unnecessary and unverifiable belief, if ever there was one), her bodily assumption, and so on, then I would urge you to stay put. You already have everything you need, and, what Rome would add to you, you not only do not need, but should positively avoid weighing yourselves down with. Anglicanism is doctrinally sound and blessed with great forms of worship. Rome is neither."

The question was raised again about Transubstantiation (the content of which you may perceive from the answer), to which he replied:

"I find this a curious question, since I never said that the doctrine of transubstantiation is an illusion. For one thing, 'doctrines' per se are never illusory, even if they are abstractions. They are merely right or wrong abstractions, based on right or wrong premises. The premises for the classical doctrine of transubstantiation are Aristotelian, and assume that 'substance' and 'accidents' are separate and separable aspects of physical realities. Not only is Aristotelianism no longer viable in today's world, but it was not the categories of thought used by Jesus, Paul, or the fathers of the church.

"In point of fact, classical transubstantiation does teach a sort of illusion -- the consecrated species look like bread and wine, but it's all appearances. If the same logic were applied to the doctrine of the Incarnation, we would inevitably end up with a form of Docetism. (Indeed, this has been done, with the bizarre Scholastic idea that Jesus didn't possess faith because he possessed the beatific vision throughout his earthly life instead. This, if it's actually believed, must invariably lead to a rather distorted picture of Jesus as either not fully human or else a sort of comic book superhuman.) So, yes, I'm not at all in favor of 'illusions'. I prefer sacraments, those mysteriously incarnational things that unite us to Christ spiritually, and in ways that Scholastic nonsense really can't categorize neatly."

Indeed, as we have seen before, the idea of a deceptive appearance of bread and wine leading to Docetism (i.e. a heresy which denies the reality of the Incarnation of Christ) was one of Cranmer's main objections to Transubstantiation. If God deceives the eyes and other senses by making something to appear as bread and wine that no longer has the substance thereof, both the Incarnation and eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection are called into question, and the Gospel is thereby renounced-no small matter. Cranmer was not the heretic, as too many late model Anglo-Catholics (cowering before Roman claims) have been foolish enough to allow. Transubstantiation, as understood at the time and refuted by Cranmer, was the heresy, and had the potential to lead to a complete rejection of the Gospel.

"The papastical doctrine is against all our outward senses called our five wits...Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands. For although our senses cannot reach so far as our faith doth, yet so far as the compass of our senses doth usually reach, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirm our faith. Or else what availed it to St. Thomas, for the confirmation of Christ's resurrection, that he did put his hand into Christ's side, and felt his wounds, if he might not trust his senses, nor give no credit thereto?

"And what a wide door is here opened to Valentinianus, Marcion and other heretics which said that Christ was 'not crucified, but that Simon Cyrenaeus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people it seemed that Christ was crucified?' or to such heretics as said, that 'Christ was no man, although to men's sights he appeared in the form of man, and seemed to be hungry, dry, weary, to weep, sleep, eat, drink, yea, and to die like as other men do.' For if we once admit this doctrine, that no credit is to be given to our senses, we open a large field, and give a great occasion unto an innumerable rabblement of most heinous heresies." (Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament)

It has been objected that too much (how to measure such a thing?) Reformed Theology can lead to accusations that the Papacy is, as an office, the Antichrist. Of course, we could make no such accusation, especially in light of Rome's solid belief in the Incarnation. But, the fourth chapter of St. John's First Epistle may have been why Cranmer, the sixty-ninth Archbishop of Canterbury, called the pope of his time by the very unflattering title, Antichrist. Cranmer had good reason to believe that Transubstantiation, as commonly understood during his lifetime, carried the potential to lead to a denial of the Incarnation.

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (I John 4:2,3)

Rome avoided this, thank God; but if anyone wants to know why Cranmer used the "A" word, at least give the man his due in the context of his own era.

All this talk about Transubstantiation led someone to ask about the Black Rubric. Well, I have never been afraid to face anything on this blog, not even the dreaded toilet monster or the other monster that hides under every child's bed, that hid under mine long, long ago. Therefore, unafraid of ghosts and goblins (even unafraid of the dreaded "P" word), I decided some time ago to write about the Black Rubric, not fearing that it might come to life from my English BCP and suck out all my blood when I was asleep.

Here then, from the archives of The Continuum, first posted on Nov. 27, 2008 :

Transubstantiation and the Black Rubric

a. Council of Trent, Session 13
CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

b. Article XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.

HE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

c. The "Black Rubric"

"Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

d. From God is near Us, (2003, San Fransisco, Ignatius Press) by Pope Benedict XVI, (published initially under the name Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)

The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.

*****

Internet theology suffers from two defects: 1) Knee-jerk reaction and 2) Nominalism. Not that the internet is the cause of these problems, inasmuch as it is merely one very fast method of communication that displays the general working of human reason in both its glory and ugliness, its strength and its feebleness. Everyone knows that the Earth is flat; or, at least everyone knew this until until it was proved otherwise; but even then, everyone knew that the sun, moon and stars orbited the earth until that irksome troublemaker Copernicus came along, and demonstrated otherwise, as if we really needed to know about the Solar System. Well, he can't spoil this one: Everyone knows the clear dividing line between Protestants and Catholics, especially when it comes to all this stuff about the Eucharist and Christ's Real Presence. And, as everybody knows, there is certainly no mystery about the sacrament. It either is or it ain't. Knee-jerk reaction and Nominalism aren't dead yet. What could be more obvious than the fact that all of the above quotations cannot be reconciled? It is every bit as obvious as the fact that the Earth is flat as a pancake.

For centuries our Roman Catholic brethren have charged that Anglicans, by denying transubstantiation, have rejected any concept of the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament. Adding to their voice has been the inferiority complex of some Anglo-Catholics who assume that this charge is true, since, like the flatness of the Earth, it is so damned obvious. There it is in black and red, especially in the "Black Rubric." This fact is safe and secure unless some theological Copernicus should happen to come along. Unfortunately, for knee-jerk Nominalists everywhere, that Copernicus has come along, thinking like an Anglican, reasoning like a Prayer-Book Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI has weighed in.

Using our heads

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy...mind." It is simply astounding that so many people insist on throwing around words without stopping to consider the basic problem of communication. Words require definition, especially in a science. And, that is exactly what theology is, in fact "the Queen of the sciences." It does no good to use a weighty word like "transubstantiation" without pausing to make sure we have a definition that is both acceptable and commonly known to all parties. Such has not been the case with this word. Furthermore, the definition given in the Council of Trent is not helpful at all, since it begs the philosophical craftsmanship that Rome's best minds have tackled only in modern times, especially Joseph Ratzinger who penned the homily from which the above quotation is taken. From the 16th century until the late 20th century, "transubstantiation" was a Nominalist buzz-word, and a superficial bone of contention.

When Anglicans rejected "transubstantiation" they were quite right. They were not rejecting the Real presence of Christ in the sacrament at all, especially inasmuch as they affirmed it clearly in the Holy Communion service of the Book of Common Prayer: "Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood..." Not symbols, not memorials, not metaphors; like St. Paul writing to the Corinthians, they simply affirmed the truth that the bread and wine were in fact the Body and Blood of Christ. In the words of Queen Elizabeth I: "'Twas God the word that spake it, He took the Bread and brake it; And what the word did make it, That I believe and take it."

So, why do I say the Anglicans were right? The answer to how the Anglicans were able to reject "transubstantiation" and yet not reject, as we mean the expression today, the Real Presence is in that very "Black Rubric" that far too many Anglo-Catholics find embarrassing. For heaven's sake-if they would only think about it, they would be glad that the offending passage clears them of the Roman-Polemicist charge. For, it demonstrates that the entire problem was simply one of definition.

Many times I have pointed out that when the Anglicans of past generations rejected "transubstantiation" it was not the same doctrine that modern Roman Catholics believe, and not the same doctrine that Pope Benedict XVI carefully laid out (as a corrective, I might add, in case any of his own people were still thinking along the early Medieval lines he so strongly denounced). They were rejecting, as Pope Benedict does, a "crude material understanding" by which the bread becomes flesh and the wine becomes blood physically, or materially. They were rejecting, as Pope Benedict felt compelled in modern times to teach his own people to reject, a definition of "transubstantiation" by which the conversion of "the whole substance" means that the appearance of bread and wine conceals the physical reality of Christ's flesh and blood. They were sure that what the Council of Trent was teaching actually did amount to cannibalism, an eating of human flesh and and drinking of human blood, which thing they saw as an abomination and superstition that overthrew the nature of a sacrament.

When I have pointed this out, Roman Catholic Polemicists have reacted instead of responding. "That's not what we ever believed." This answer is not at all useful, since the issue here is one of perception. Furthermore, then Archbishop, later Cardinal, Ratzinger-now the Pope-saw a need to teach this clearly to his own people:

"Jesus is not there like a piece of meat, not in the realm of what can be measured and quantified...How should we relate to reality? What is 'real'?...Concerning the Eucharist it is said to us: The substance is transformed, that is to say, the fundamental basis of its being...Whenever the Body of Christ, that is, the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens...The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different."

Maybe this is what the Council of Trent meant, using unfortunate wording that lent itself to misunderstanding. Then again, considering the period, maybe not. Nonetheless, it is the fault of Rome, not of Canterbury, that this confusion was allowed to go unchecked until modern times. A few simple words could have clarified everything much sooner. Yet, even as late as my own childhood in the 1950s and 1960s, those words had not come.

Thinking philosophically

Pope Benedict gets to a very important issue, namely the nature of reality. Even a term as strong as "a conversion...of the whole substance" needed never to have caused such division and confusion, inasmuch as a spiritual reality is every bit as real as a physical one. "The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." In every way, these words are compatible with the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, and the definition that has finally been given in our day of the word "transubstantiation." Even the "Black Rubric" is perfectly compatible with this. "For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances...and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one." Or, as the Pope put it, "The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different."

Latreia

The real problem with the "Black Rubric" is not that it is wrong, but that it is no longer relevant, and no longer guards against any genuine danger of the mind slipping into idolatry, inasmuch as the old confusion has cleared away. This brings us to but one matter that requires clarification. The Anglican caution about adoration of the sacrament is not referring to veneration, but to worship, that specific worship (latreia, λατρεία) due only to God himself. Here it may be argued that if we believe in the Real Presence of Christ, then our adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is directed to God the Son, not to the physical elements. However, that kind of reasoning takes us to a different category than what the "Black Rubric" actually addressed. The sort of adoration it warned against would be quite wrong. For, it warned against adoration of a "Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood." Such a corporal presence is not what the Church teaches, rendering such adoration misplaced. Not to be irreverent, but if we placed the sacramental body and blood of Christ under a microscope, we would see wheat and the blood of grapes. Neither could we find in them the DNA of Jesus of Nazareth; and yet He is in those elements, and is present in very truth, as real as reality can be, Present as the food and drink of eternal life. And, this is what Anglicans have always called "the nature of a sacrament."

So, it is past the time to throw away knee-jerk reaction and Nominalism, to follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI, and to both think and communicate with clarity. It may be less fun than a barn-yard scrap or a two-fisted saloon brawl, such as internet theology often is. But, that is simply the pain of growing up.

Recommended reading

I recommend the essay Just Trust us on this one...wink, wink, on a blog called Beggars All (which I have not seen before this week). In it a writer named John Bugay says:

"One of the reasons why people misunderstand Roman Catholicism is because, for centuries, the Roman Catholic apologetic has not been one of honesty and clarity, but it’s one of deflection. It’s a classic bait-and switch, which I would argue, is fundamentally dishonest, on a regular basis...

"Roman apologetics that came out of the Reformation had a certain character that asked (maybe in disbelief) 'Where was your religion before the year 1517?'...By 1688, this appeal to authority and antiquity was so etched into the public mind that bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) had produced a work, Histoire des Variations des Églises Protestantes (1688) in which he asserted: '...There is no difficulty about recognizing false doctrine: there is no argument about it: it is recognized at once, whenever it appears, merely because it is new…'...But as it turns out, Rome cannot hold itself to that standard. Less than 200 years later, Newman was crafting a 'theory of Development' that was necessary to explain away all of the many changes that Rome HAD incorporated. ..

"It’s really a classic bait-and-switch. I have two thoughts on this: First, there is very much in 'Catholic Sacred Tradition” that is quite 'anti-biblical'. Beginning with an apologetic that says, 'you can’t understand what the Bible is or says without an infallible interpreter.'"

The myth of consensus

The following was posted on Dec. 27, 2007, by Albion Land:

For Shame!

BETHLEHEM, December 27 (AFP) - Seven people were injured on Thursday when Greek Orthodox and Armenian priests came to blows in a dispute over how to clean the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

Following the Christmas celebrations, Greek Orthodox priests set up ladders to clean the walls and ceilings of their part of the church, which is built over the site where Jesus Christ is believed to have been born.

But the ladders encroached on space controlled by Armenian priests, according to photographers who said angry words ensued and blows quickly followed.

For a quarter of an hour bearded and robed priests laid into each other with fists, brooms and iron rods while the photographers who had come to take pictures of the annual cleaning ceremony recorded the whole event.

A dozen unarmed Palestinian policemen were sent to try to separate the priests, but two of them were also injured in the unholy melee.

"As usual the cleaning of the church afer Christmas is a cause of problems," Bethlehem Mayor Victor Batarseh told AFP, adding that he has offered to help ease tensions.

"For the two years that I have been here everything went more or less calmly," he said. "It's all finished now."

The Church of the Nativity, like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem's Old City, is shared by various branches of Christianity, each of which controls and jealously guards a part of the holy site.

The Church of the Nativity is built on the site where Christians believe Jesus was born in a stable more than 2,000 years ago after Mary and Joseph were turned away by an inn.
Posted by Albion Land at Thursday, December 27, 2007
_________
Jerusalem Boxing Day

In England the Feast of Stephen, Dec. 26, is also called Boxing Day. The name comes from the boxes that have to do with Christmas gifts. In Jerusalem, Boxing Day can be December 24, or the 27, depending on when tempers flare between the holy men of the Two One True Churches. If only 2007 had been an unusual year, but it wasn't. This almost annual event is merely a symbol of how well they get along in general.

The lesson for modern Anglo-Catholics is simple. Get over your inferiority complex. Stop looking to Rome or Orthodoxy with misty-eyed sentimentality. Instead, get a grip on reality in the following ways.

1. Grasp the fact that the Great Schism is between ancient imperial East and the ancient imperial West (i.e. Rome and Constantinople), not between the "ancient churches" and us. Sadly, they just don't get along with each other, especially without Anglican help.

2. The real consensus of the Church Catholic is best expressed in the pages of our very own Book of Common Prayer, better than any other single source. Why? Because it sets forth the catholick Faith of the Universal Church without regard for the styles and fashions that have blown it about since the early middle ages. It contains the Creeds in every major service, and teaches the Biblical Faith according to the most ancient universal Tradition.

3. For all the talk about the Church Fathers, it is the Book of Common Prayer that relies on the actual Patristic method for establishing doctrine, i.e. the Faith as received and set forth in the Bible. If you doubt that, then actually read the Fathers. You will be shocked, some of you, by how much they come across like Evangelicals--they even "proof text."

4. The real Anglo-Catholics have all departed this life, having lived in the 19th and early 20th centuries. If you are among their true followers you will not denigrate or belittle the Book of Common Prayer, or their confidence in the Anglican position.

5. That Anglican position is that we are already fully part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The real Anglo-Catholics did not look to Rome or Orthodoxy to save them and give them authenticity. Rather, they asserted the claim that our Apostolic Succession is second to none, our Protestant doctrine fully Catholick, our sacraments fully valid, and they were confident that our very existence is a gift to help heal very old and very sad divisions. This last item they acted on quite energetically, humbly but firmly.

6. Only one Church exists in the Earth. The Holy Union is monogamous, Christ having one bride in that mystical union to which He is faithful as the Bishop of our souls and Husband of one wife.

7. Therefore, our antiquity is equal to theirs. This is for the following reasons.

a. The whole Church began at the same time, and the whole Church was baptized in the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, the same day when the Apostle, St. Peter preached the Gospel to the crowd.

b. Our history is not merely five hundred years old. This is not simply because the Church existed in Briton from Apostolic times. Even more so, it is because the whole Church was born on the same day, which Church we belong to no less than the children of Rome and Constantinople.

c. Every Christian is part of one generation, as God has children, but no grandchildren (see this).

So, if you want to follow the Anglo-Catholics (who restored balance in their time no less than the Reformers did in theirs, or the Caroline Divines in theirs), then have confidence that your own Anglican heritage is catholick in that it is full and complete. That is what they stood for, humbly but firmly. They would not encourage the inferiority complex that too many of you have.

An Apologetic Response to Rome's constitution

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:6-9

"Blessed are the pure (καθαρός) in heart: for they shall see God."
Matthew 5:8

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished' (τελέω): and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
John 19:30
___________

In the ongoing debate about whether or not Continuing Anglicans ought to regard the issuance of Anglicanorum Coetibus as some great opportunity, it seems to have occurred to none of the TAC/ACA leaders who favor taking the route to Rome, that theological objections could be raised. Most of their arguments have been along the lines of misusing words from John 17:21 ("that they all may be one"), as if a small group of people leaving one denomination for another has eschatological and Messianic significance, and constitutes a moral imperative to get with their program.

The pressure thus put on their people is based on the absurd notion that joining the Roman Catholic Church will somehow correct all of the outward and political (in the proper sense of the word, about "polity") disunity that has divided the Church since 1054 AD. Leaving aside unrealistic appeals to mere sentimentality, and looking at objective facts, the consequences of becoming Roman Catholic can be detrimental, especially if it is for dubious reasons that fall short of genuine conviction and persuasion that compel each individual conscience to believe all of the Papal claims, including the full weight of Roman Catholic doctrine. If that doctrine is flawed, especially in matters to do with the Gospel (the question we shall examine), then submission to Rome is a price no Continuing Anglican ought to pay and that no honest person can afford; that is, unless and until the theological issues have been resolved.

If, indeed, one considers the consensus of the Church Catholic to be infallible, it is only right to remind such a person that the present separation between the Communion of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church begs the question of consensus, and makes the pressure to get with the program for unity's sake all the more spurious. But, instead of theological discussion, those who push for hasty acceptance of Rome's "offer" distract us with matters of polity.

If the interpretation (indeed the "spin") that they render to Anglicanorum Coetibus were accurate, such as their wild claims about what the document actually says and means concerning the future of married clergy under whatever ordinariates may become established, we would still protest on theological grounds that the Faith itself is more pure and true as recovered in our Anglican heritage than in what Rome teaches and practices. That their interpretation of Anglicanorum Coetibus is, beyond doubt, entirely wrong,1 whether from ignorance or dishonesty, remains the case. However, it is of secondary importance. More to the point, conversion to Roman Catholicism requires one to embrace theological errors that touch on the Gospel.

What would unity require?

Richard Hooker held out hope for unity, someday, with the See of Rome. Unlike the Continental European churches of the Reformation, the English did not write off Rome as hopelessly Antichrist, or beyond reform. So wrote Hooker:

We hope therefore that to reform ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the Church we were of before. In the Church we were, and we are so still. Other difference between our estate before and now we know none but only such as we see in Juda; which having sometime been idolatrous became afterwards more soundly religious by renouncing idolatry and superstition. If Ephraim “be joined unto idols,” the counsel of the Prophet is, “Let him alone.” “If Israel play the harlot, let not Juda sin.” “If it seem evil unto you,” saith Josua, “to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods whom your fathers served beyond the flood, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell: but I and mine house will serve the Lord.” The indisposition therefore of the Church of Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us from performing our duty to God; even as desire of retaining conformity with them could be no excuse if we did not perform that duty.

Notwithstanding so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with them. For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel that they are in one respect enemies but in another beloved of God; in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate concerning sundry her gross and grievous abominations, yet touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ; and our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be his will) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distraction remain in any thing, but that we “all may with one heart and one mouth glorify God the Father of our Lord and Saviour,” whose Church we are.2

We may ask whether or not the situation has changed from the time of Richard Hooker to such a degree that theological issues no longer divide us from Rome. The answer is complicated, but not unclear.

The first and obvious difference has to do with the papacy itself. Although Roman Catholic apologists are unwavering, and no doubt sincere, in their assertion of contrived and manipulated selection of evidence that is essential to their doctrine, we cannot accept the doctrine Rome has developed about their local episcopate. That Rome had, among the Patriarchates, a primacy of honor recognized in the Second, Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, is without doubt. The evidence shows, however, when all is weighed together, that this honor was based on two things: The reputation that the Church of Rome had in ancient times for doctrinal clarity and purity, and the association of the capital city with an empire that had become identified (some might argue too closely) with the Church itself. That Constantinople ranked as a second "Equal" in honor is only further evidence of the imperial significance.

That the Tome of Leo was followed by the bishops at Chalcedon saying, "Peter has spoken through Leo," takes its modern significance from a retroactive perspective. Modern readers, after centuries of hearing about "the See of Peter"-- a phrase that applies equally to Antioch-- cannot appreciate the satisfaction expressed by learned men that apostolic doctrine had been well presented. So, to take their approbation of the Tome as a Church doctrine that informs our interpretation of Matthew 16: 18 ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"), is historical nonsense. The Book of Acts informs our interpretation. That Peter was the man whose preaching and leadership unlocked the ministry of the Church and proved instrumental in establishing it in its earliest period, proves to be a historical fact, recorded in that book written by St. Luke. We see no honest way to read back into Matthew 16 the current claims of the papacy. Nothing is said there about Peter himself beyond the events that would unfold in the early portion of the Book of Acts, and certainly nothing about his alleged successors in the See of Rome. In the earliest days the Lord used St. Peter; later, He used St. Paul above any others, as it pleased Him.

The Patriarchates proved useful in the organization of the ancient Church, but unlike Apostolic Succession itself, the system does not appear to be necessary as a permanent structure, and does not appear to have been handed down by revelation as a practice recorded in Scripture. Apostolic Succession was practiced while the New Testament was being written, as the Pastoral Epistles most clearly demonstrate (i.e., to Timothy and Titus), and has the color of authority to it as a practice revealed by God. But, Patriarchates as a system, and the Roman claim to Universal Primacy specifically, do not have any authority to which we can attach the revelation of God in Scripture. Nonetheless, even if we grant some permanence to the Patriarchates, the Great Schism of 1054 AD demonstrates that the claims of Rome persist only by the insistence of Rome itself, not by Scripture, and, for those who value it, not by universal consensus either.

Gospel Imperative

But, as much as Rome has reformed herself in some very important matters, including its strides forward with Lutherans on the question of Justification, her bondage to precedent has caused a major error to persist to this day. Furthermore, added to the claims of Universal Primacy as an executive role, rejected by the Universal Church in 1054 (a fact beyond the reach of reasonable dispute), Rome's modern twist on Church Infallibility that led to the identification of that idea solely with the Bishop and Patriarch of Rome himself in 1870, has made true and necessary reform impossible. It will be impossible until Rome is able to confess the truth that she has erred in the past, and is able by that confession of obvious fact, to renounce one heresy in particular. And, until Rome can bring itself to reform its doctrine to the level we must insist on for the sake of the Gospel, we cannot in good conscience throw away our Anglican heritage to come under her rule.

Their own doctrine of Infallibility stands in the way. It was contrived honestly, to bind popes to a body of doctrine that cannot be altered by any man's whims (indeed, contrived because they did not believe any pope to be infallible by his office and some alleged charism, but rather it was intended to hold each pope to what was handed down to him). But, instead of binding the papacy to teach pure doctrine, it has prevented necessary reform by its very nature.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church that was established under the Papal Imprimatur of John-Paul II, we see that bondage to precedent has created self-contradiction on one and the same page that teaches, properly, that only through Christ do we have atonement and the forgiveness of sins, and yet nonetheless reiterates the doctrine of the Treasury. That is, it reiterates a medieval heresy that turns everyone's attention from Christ and His Gospel to a man made religious system of salvation.

In that system, salvation from sin and death fades into insignificance, overshadowed by seeking time off from Purgatory, and doing so by applying a form of credit called "merits" that one receives from saints who supposedly earned them. These merits can be applied by the Church to the account of sinners so that they may be relieved of "temporal punishment" for their sins, released early from a punitive Purgatory, and allowed into the presence of God for the ultimate joy of the Beatific Vision.

"What's wrong with the idea of someone using his credit on someone else's behalf?" we are asked. It sounds so reasonable, especially when tortured logic elevates this abominable theory to the level of revelation from God, to the level of dogma. The answer is, everything is wrong with it.

First of all, if there is any truth to the idea of a Purgatorio, it is the idea of being made "pure in heart" so that we may see God. The Beatitude, in the Beatific Vision, is "Blessed are the pure (καθαρός) in heart: for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8) But, if the issue goes from purification to punishment, evening the scales of justice, then the end result is bypassed also, and fades into insignificance. Instead of purity of heart, we have the pound of flesh.

Secondly, the scriptures set forth something very different, salvation from sin and death that only Christ could purchase for us, because no one else has the funds with which to pay for our sins, namely, true sinlessness of His own, true purity in himself. If the Epistle to the Hebrews does not clarify this for you, then you have no hope.

Now where remission of these [i.e. sins] is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (Heb. 10:18-22)

The Gospel teaches us to look into eternity and to face mortality without fear, unless we persist willfully in sin.

But, if we believe that the saints have merits, instead of believing that saints are those who have received mercy and grace, and if we believe they may spend these merits on our behalf, then what do we make of the words of Jesus, words he spoke just before dying? "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished' (τελέω): and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30)

That one word τελέω [pronounced teleō], translated into three English words ("it is finished"), was stamped on every receipt for every account once it was fully paid. and not at all before. It cannot be translated, "it is mostly paid." It must be translated, "It is paid in full."

The Gospel of merits and the Treasury cannot stand with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Popes are bound by this medieval doctrine, created by the tortured logic of human imagination or demonic influence, if not both (And, just to correct the record, long before the English Reformers rejected it, it was regarded as error by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and so it has never had the consensus of which some have boasted). Punitive Purgatorio, saintly merits as credits, time off from an imagined sentence of temporal punishments that makes a mockery of forgiveness and of Christ's cross, combine into a false gospel

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1: 7-9)

To be bound by precedent is not the same as fidelity to the truth that God has revealed. But, for those who cannot fathom that the See of Rome could have erred, remember Paul's words include even the Apostles themselves. For, in the words, "but though we," it is the Apostles of whom he wrote. In short, no one has any authority to preach another gospel.

Until Rome can say that Christ, and Christ alone, paid the debt in full, we must remain where we are.
___________
1. Everything to do with the subject of married clergy in the new constitution and norms, begins with these conditions:

"VI. § 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfil the requisites established by canon law[13] and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments[14] may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42[15] and in the Statement In June[16] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1."

Too much has been made by the followers of John Hepworth over words they see in § 2, "a case by case basis." In this, Hepworth and his spokesmen rely on common ignorance, inasmuch as the existing Pastoral Provisions are, also, on a case by case basis and have been so all along. Nothing is new in this, and the conditions are not thereby altered or removed. Only converts, "Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfil the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates."

Where facts cannot prevail, rumors have been introduced, Recently, I received correspondence from one of Hepworth's duped followers in which it was insisted that a man who was a layman in an "Anglican Use" parish of the Roman Catholic Church, and who was married, has been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest. I asked for the name and contact information of the priest in question, and for news reports about this historical event. I was told there were no news reports. I responded that it seems more than incredible that the first ordination of a married man in over eight hundred years, in the Roman Catholic Church (not in what is called loosely a "Uniate" or an "Eastern Rite" church), was not considered newsworthy by any paper, magazine, TV, radio or internet news outlet, even though such an event would constitute history. I suggested that someone was telling a lie, and that my correspondent had bought it. I have yet to hear back from him with any of the details--no surprise.

2. Richard Hooker: The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book III, I, 10

The farce be with you

In an effort to stay afloat, the dishonestly named blog, The Anglo-Catholic, has become an organ of the pro-Roman voices within Forward in Faith/UK. No longer does that blog speak of trying to be Anglican and Roman at the same time, but simply of becoming Roman. A recent post there, by one Fr. Ed Tomlinson, includes some revealing lines, such as these:

"We Anglo-Catholics who seek unity with Rome find ourselves in a tight spot at present...We set sail on our raft because our sincere Catholic convictions have left us unable to remain Anglican with integrity now that General Synod has made clear its decision to move the national church in a less Catholic direction. Getting on the raft is not easy as it requires leaving much that we love and treasure behind us. And for this reason, amongst others, we are clearly few in number."

Note the perspective from which this is written: It is written by someone for whom "Anglican" is inseparable from the official government organ called the Church of England. Therefore, the writer seems incapable of imagining a church body that still teaches and practices the religion of the Book of Common Prayer. He is unable to perceive of a church that holds to Anglican principles without being in communion with the See of Canterbury. Reading this causes me to imagine what St. Maximos the Confessor would have faced if his regard, in his day, for the See of Constantinople had been so greatly exaggerated. St. Maximos could say, during the tenure of an unorthodox man as Patriarch, "we are not in communion," without losing the things he loved and treasured.

No Anglican alternative to offer?
We too, as a people, several decades ago, took a course of action based on conviction and sober reflection. For more than thirty years we (not each and every one of us, but our church body) have not been in communion with Canterbury. But, we have not been forced to decide between Canterbury and Rome. Someone ought to suggest to Fr. Tomlinson that he read the Affirmation of St. Louis. The truth, that he does not know, apparently, is that he need not leave behind those things he claims to love and treasure.

But, the real irony is this: That blog was supposed to have been an organ of Continuing Anglicanism, and so pretended only a few months ago. But, now we see that sustaining a lie of that magnitude required more energy than their power line could supply. What is missing from the picture? Very simply, the Continuing Anglican alternative. For the people who blog at the so-called Anglo-Catholic, there is no Affirmation of St. Louis. Therefore, Fr. Tomlinson writes for them, "our sincere Catholic convictions have left us unable to remain Anglican" (perhaps everyone can see now why we have been calling that blog The Former Anglican). By "Catholic" he means, of course, Roman. The meaning of the word "Catholic" loses its true meaning, its Credal meaning, and is tossed from their "raft" into the sea, along with the Book of Common Prayer.

This is what happens when you reduce your knowledge of all things Catholic to the selected portions of true catholic faith that happen still to be held by Rome. In place of what is omitted, you build new ideas onto your knowledge of things Catholic to include Roman innovations unknown to the Apostles, unknown to the Fathers, and unknown to the whole Church during the entire first millennium. It involves both taking away and adding to the word of God. It means removing whole portions of his revelation through the Apostles and Prophets, and adding, in their place, doctrines that are at best mere speculation, and at worst "repugnant to the word of God." Inasmuch as that practice of subtraction and addition is how, when in Rome, to do as the Romans, it may be fitting for these former Anglicans to learn it now.

We see that the whole effort of trying to reunite with Rome on false pretenses, at a time in history when outward and political forced Reunion of the Church is premature, has led the people who trust in Anglicanorum Coetibus with its potential Ordinariates, to abandon the Continuing Anglican Church altogether. They have lost the whole foundation that we build on firmly and confidently. But, have they rejected The Affirmation of St. Louis, or have they merely forgotten it? It hardly matters which; either way, it is obvious that they have no answer to offer to Fr. Tomlinson, and no alternative for people like him.

They have fallen for the same Roman propaganda, which means they never really got the point in the first place. Their blog has a lot to say about liturgy, without putting in one good word for the Book of Common Prayer. That is always a sure symptom, I might add, of severe theological ignorance, with misinformation serving as their only "education" about content, history and meaning. It is that misinformation, worse than mere ignorance, that is always evident whenever they might say anything about the subject.

In place of Anglican fathers, their website pays homage to Thomas More, the "saint" who hounded the godly William Tyndale to death, ultimately accomplished by strangulation (we hope that More repented that ultimately successful attempt at judicial murder before "instant karma" got him-and he didn't look a thing like Paul Scofield). It pays homage, also, to John Fisher, but has nothing good to say about the Anglican martyr who gave us our Prayer Book, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, nor a word about Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes, or Abp. Laud. It has nothing good to say about anyone or anything that is not thoroughly Tridentine. It is obviously Roman Catholic, and in a manner so partisan and triumphalist that it would embarrass many a thoughtful and reasonable member of that communion.

So, why the dishonest name they continue to use?

Division in the ranks
One of the former bloggers of the Former Anglican, as we call it, has gone from being a contributor to the dishonestly named Anglo-Catholic, to being the webmiester of a dubiously named English Catholic blog, posted in France by Fr. Anthony Chadwick (whose TAC congregation in that country must hold a record, not unlike the record height of the word's tallest midget). Apparently, from all the evidence, Mr. Campbell down in Orlando has finally learned that my warning was true: Archbishop John Hepworth is not to be trusted. This shocking revelation has, however, cost him the continued writing of the English Catholic, Père Chadwick.

In a letter written and sent via email to his faithful readers, Chadwick writes:

"The Moderator’s [Campbell] explanation of my ‘firing’ was this:

'You really ought to have checked with me before your last post (which I have been forced to remove). +Hepworth is leading you down the primrose path; if you would like to speak about the situation, I would be happy to explain. Please feel free to give me a call.'

Whose hermeneutic of the Ordinariates will prevail? It is no longer my concern but that of my Archbishop [Hepworth] and the TAC bishops with very few exceptions solidly supporting him and his approach to Rome . I believe in ecclesiastical obedience and I follow my Archbishop in what I am convinced is the right thing. I joined the TAC knowing that the intention was to approach Rome for corporate unity / reception into communion...From this point, I eschew disputes on account of clerical marriage / celibacy, sexual ethics or the like. Though these matters are important, they are not my concern."

Apparently, it has become clear to Mr. Campbell and his band of bloggers, that Hepworth's spin on Anglicanorum Coetibus has been as absurd as we, here on this blog, have been saying all along. Perhaps he has run out of the steam it takes to "believe six impossible things before breakfast," having come to his senses in accord with my analysis of a few simple facts. But, Père Chadwick is still a faithful Hepworthian, still believing that the twice-married former Roman Catholic priest will, somehow, get to be an Ordinary. We know that Hepworth was telling the TAC's Canadian churches that he, even with that baggage, would be accepted as an Archbishop by the see of Rome (which seems to have contributed to the reasons why at least ten of those parishes, last I was given the count, have left the TAC. Mr. Haney can sell only so much to Mr. Douglas before his shtick gets old).

Chadwick has also expressed his deep love for what he seems to think of as Anglican patrimony:

"I am now (as I always have been) concerned with English Catholic (both Anglican and Roman Catholic) culture and spirituality. The Sarum Liturgy is particularly close to my heart, but also the English Church ’s adoption of the Counter Reformation and the Roman Rite. Patrimony also expends ["extends?"] to culture, art, music and spirituality as well as systems of Church government."

Notice what is missing. That's right--no mention whatsoever of the Book of Common Prayer, or anything Anglican. It includes the Counter-Reformation, and it reduces Anglican patrimony to cultural and artistic expressions, as if theology and the Anglican renaissance of Biblical and Patristic scholarship, were meaningless (no doubt, his knowledge of these things is a complete blank). And, the use of the phrase "systems of Church government" indicates that he does not know the difference between the true Anglican Catholic Episcopal order and the Geneva Discipline. I suspect that he has not read Hooker, and was not aware that "church government" is a term we have never used (Anglicans have polity, not "church government").

Chadwick's personal affirmation is really the same Roman collection we see in Fr. Tomlinson's thinking, and that we find on the so-called Anglo-Catholic. It appears, furthermore, that the disunity in TAC ranks boils down to the relative strength of personalities; who reigns as king of the hill, who gets to play Robin Hood, and who gets to wear the purplest shirt of them all. It is the same as ever, the reason why schisms have broken away from the Continuing Church up to and including the Deerfield Beach schism, which is now coming apart.

At the present time, there is nothing good to report about the direction taken by these people. To this day they have maintained an outward rejection of the necessary theological improvements and cleansing of the English Reformation, and of the development of the real Anglican Patrimony, including the balance restored, in their generation, by the real Anglo-Catholics of old Oxford. They remain ignorant, possibly by choice, of the theological issues that forced a separation in the sixteenth century, and which remain unresolved. They think of Anglicanism merely as Roman Catholicism with an English accent. They haven't got a clue.

I hope, for their own sakes, that all of them will stop trying to be teachers and leaders. They have yet to be students of the theology of the Anglican Way. Obviously, everything they think they know, about their own heritage, they have learned from Roman polemicists. They are filled with the fruit of a false education, and even in their divisions, are racing to the wrong destination, leaving behind riches they know nothing of.

"GAY" ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES

On his blog, Anglican Catholic Priest, Fr. John Roddy has written:

"In the interest of full disclosure to Anglicans considering accepting the terms of conversion to Roman Catholicism outlined in Anglicorum Coeitibus I am posting excerpts and links to two articles one from News Week and another from Ignatius Press. The one in News Week is approving of the capture of the Roman Seminaries by organized leftists homosexuals. The one from Ignatius Press is an account from a young man who endured the "gay" atmosphere that was imposed on the seminary."

You may read the information posted as "GAY" ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES by clicking on the title.

The Definite Maybe

by Rev. Canon John Hollister

This morning, I took a gander at an article on “The Orlando Anglican” entitled Someone Understands Us by a Fr. Michael Gollop, apparently a Roman Catholic (RC) or R.C.-leaning priest in Wales. It comments on a post by a “Pastor in Valle” on another blog in which P.i.V. reaffirmed the truth of what so many have been denying, namely, that those who go to Rome will have to accept and internalize the entire Roman doctrinal basket; they will not be able to tool down some theological supermarket aisle, putting into their shopping carts only the items that have eye appeal and leaving the rest unremarked on the shelf.

The specific issue that P.i.V. highlighted, and that Fr. Gollop underlined, was that all Anglican clergy going to Rome will have to accept reordination in absolute form. Fr. Gollop’s article is an apology for this Roman practice, claiming that “it really isn’t all that bad” (my words, his summary):

“For many clergy — … throughout the Anglican world — the sticking point where it comes to the Ordinariates is precisely this question of (re)ordination. It’s not a concern I share myself, having enough anxiety about the doctrinal history of Anglicanism (not exactly diminished by recent decisions) to be too bullish about the sufficiency of our orders by themselves.”

Think about the implications of that. According to Fr. Gollop, the personal views of the celebrant, if heretical (as in Rome’s eyes Anglican beliefs are), invalidate the Sacraments celebrated by that heretic. So not only were Augustine and all those other guys wrong but so is Article XXVI of the Articles of Religion. Entitled “Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments”, that Article is all that permits most of us to presumptuously climb to the footpace each Sunday and holy day.

That is, in Fr. Gollop’s Rome the Sacraments are not objective so that they are valid just so long as their celebrants “intend to do what the Church has always done” in those Sacraments. That is what Anglicanism historically has taught. Instead, in Gollopian Rome, they are subjective, that is, their efficacy depends on the internal mental disposition of the celebrant and that is what justifies such celebrants’ reordinations. It is on this basis that Fr. Gollop defends Rome’s policy of reordaining absolutely (as opposed to conditionally) such former Anglican clergy as it deigns to deem acceptable:

“From the perspective of both sides, some further act of sacramental validation is necessary to remove all vestiges of doubt. It’s the price that has to be paid for sacramental certainty (not to mention reunion with Peter) and I don't think we should complain about it.”

Quite apart from my doubt about “reunion with Peter”, who, after all, was most assuredly not the founder of the Church in Rome -- that was up and running before ever Paul wrote his letter to it, or he would have had no one to whom to address that letter -- it seems to me this subjective concept of the Sacraments hardly offers much reassurance to those who contemplate going to Rome. What happens, in Fr. Gollop’s view, if one is sitting in church one Sunday morning and the celebrant’s mind wanders? Or if that celebrant happens to be precisely what we were warned against by Pastor in Valle, that is, one of the very large number of “supermarket Catholics” who rejects what the Pope teaches, thinks do-it-yourself theology and liturgy are “in the Spirit of Vatican II”, and tunes his own moral compass in precisely the subjective, individualistic fashion, ignoring the centralized Roman magisterium, that is decried in another of this morning’s “Orlando Anglican” offerings, Fr. John Fleming’s Newman, Clifford Longley, Conscience and Contraception?

Anyone who has attended a Roman Mass in the U.S. in recent years will recognize my hypothetical scenario as not only possible but, indeed, probable. But in such a case we would have to deal with what Fr. Gollop would presumably call “the doctrinal history of Romanism” (yeah, I know he wouldn’t say “Romanism” but would instead would use that exclusivist “C” word that Rome claims to have trademarked, but I can’t bring myself to use such a fraudulent term). That is a “doctrinal history” which openly tolerates the sort of widespread abuses I have described. This, according to Fr. Gollop’s subjectivist principle, means that no one sitting in those Roman pews would have any “sacramental certainty” about, for example, the Transubstantiation to which they are all, by Roman dogma, theoretically committed.

But then, under the circumstances I have proposed, what “further act of sacramental validation” would be available to those congregants “to remove all vestiges of doubt [as] the price that has to be paid for sacramental certainty (not to mention reunion with Peter)”? After all, a suitable condiment for anserini of one sex must also be a good spice for those of the other.

--oo0oo--