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

"I do not seek retribution"

TAC Archbishop John Hepworth

Or so he says. Indeed, the news (here) recently broke in The Australian. But, anyone following the news of recent months can trace a story line in which Abp. Hepworth began to complain that the Roman Catholic Church was backtracking on the promises in Anglicanorum Coetibus, first in Canada and then beyond. And, what promises, exactly, was Rome backtracking on? Frankly, they refused to alter their new constitution and the Canon Law it was based on, and to which it referred consistently in its Article VI (the one most often misquoted and distorted). That means, of course, that they did not live by Hepworth's own spin on the meaning of Anglicanorum Coetibus, essentially his own promises to anyone in the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) who would listen, that if they would follow him to the Tiber they could have their cake and eat it too.

Hepworth's own fantasy island in the Tiber promised that every TAC priest could expect to be received in his orders, and that he himself would still be their Archbishop. He came right out with that line in Canada, essentially no different from his insistence to me, face to face in Timonium, Maryland three years ago, before the new constitution but well along in the TAC-Rome adventure. He objected to anyone writing that he would not be the one to lead his people into the Roman land of promise. He told me I had been wrong to say he could not minister as a man in holy orders if he went back to the Roman Catholic Church, even though at the time I thought I was praising his apparent humility and sincerity, even though not agreeing with his Roman bias. 

The problem is, Anglicanorum Coetibus carefully, consistently and unmistakably offered nothing more than what existing Canon Law and Pastoral Provisions already provided, except to make those provisions internationally available. Therefore, in no uncertain terms, it was clear on reasserting that no former Roman Catholic could expect to be ordained if he had left the Roman Catholic Church as an adult, no former Roman Catholic clergyman who left could resume ordained ministry after returning from an Anglican (or any Protestant) body, and that no man could practice ordained ministry if he had in his life impediments to the same. For Hepworth, twice married with a divorce and Anglican annulment, that meant he had no chance. He denied however, to me sitting across a small hotel lobby table, and later to larger audiences, that to return to Rome he would have to lay down his archiepiscopal office.

But, when the time for truth came, the Church of Rome stuck to its Canon Law. The TAC priests who were interested in becoming Roman Catholic priests under the terms of the new constitution, discovered that their education, unlike former Church of England clergy (where Oxford and Cambridge set the standard), did not qualify them for a fast track to "ordination" in the Roman Church. And, men with impediments were not going to get around the problem. That was when Hepworth fired back at the Church of Rome. He was not getting his way, meaning, they were not keeping his promises, but only their own.

But, he is a big man, not seeking retribution, ready to forgive, not grinding an ax. Or so he assures us.

Personal problems and sexual abuse

Now, we have Abp. Hepworth telling the world that he had been repeatedly abused sexually from the age of 15 by Australian Roman Catholic priests, into early manhood. This serial abuse even exceeded the shocking story he told me back in 2008. He has now used the word "rape," saying the abuse followed into his early adult years. These homosexual rapist priests must have been very large and powerful men, able to force themselves on the muscular Hepworth, who stands more than six feet tall and looks every bit a truck driver.

The article says:

"In an attitude of extraordinary forgiveness and atonement, his prime concern, set out in a letter to Archbishop Wilson in November 2008, was that his relationship with the Catholic Church be healed before he died.

"'I do not seek retribution,' he wrote but he felt 'deeply cheated of a priestly life that I have been exercising as it were by subterfuge, outside the communion of the Catholic Church'."

A long time reader of this blog, Millo Shaw, made this observation and asked a hypothetical question:

"So all his time as an Anglican priest and Archbishop of the TAC was merely a 'subterfuge, outside the communion of the Catholic Church.'  I wonder if he truly understands that he is in effect saying that his time as a cleric in the Anglican Church was nothing ever more than a lie and deception and that Anglicanism never was, is, or shall be, even in its TAC format, part of the Catholic Church?  I wonder how the people whom he has led feel about this?  What did he really think he was doing when he was carrying out the sacraments?"

The article in The Australian also says:

"In his March 2008 statement, he wrote: 'Perhaps I have been too driven in my search for redemption, for acceptance by a church that I did not know how to approach. I ran away from that church, but I have never lost my love for it.'

"Despite the fact that he has been married, divorced and remarried and has three children, he also wrote: 'Perhaps it is the only real love that I have ever known, and it is a love distorted and beyond my reach over all of my adult life.' "

It is obvious, at this point, that Abp. John Hepworth is a very troubled man who has  lived a sad and tragic life. We should pray for him, and hope for God's healing hand to be manifest. At the same time, others need to be liberated from the oppressive manner in which this troubled man has exercised leadership. 

Also, despite the lazy manner of "journalists" and "reporters" who have replaced journalism and reporting with copying and pasting, the TAC was, at its strongest point (before the Anglicanorum Coetibus circus) never more than about 50,000 strong - nowhere near the oft pasted 400,000 figure (or, 700,000 according to Orlando - what's 300,000 or so? Six of one, and all that). But, 50,000 is a lot of people; two or three count infinitely, as does one soul - more than a pearl of great price.

It is a travesty that so many people were subjected to one man's psychological problems. For years the entire TAC was being torn up one side and down the other, distracted from evangelism and prevented from recovering unity with the rest of the Continuing Anglican churches, focused almost entirely on Roman Catholicism and losing sight of anything remotely Anglican. They have suffered great loss, and a waste of years and resources. All this time the Roaming Romeward emphasis, in what people joined and contributed to as an Anglican church, was really about one man and his personal trauma. 

The old line about "unity" looked silly all along, since leaving one denomination for another is not unity. Now, we see it was always more of a subterfuge than we could say - openly.

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.

The ex- Anglican Mob

A necessary rebuttal to bad news, i.e. misleading journalism.

(Pictured: Archbishop John Hepworth of the "Traditional Anglican Communion")

Sometimes the news can be very misleading by quoting someone without comment., The news as reported becomes for many people "the truth," even when the report was merely covering what someone said. As long as Anglicanorum Coetibus is part of the news, and as long as its contents are the subject of misinformation that affects people's lives and may affect the future of whole parishes, it would be irresponsible to ignore it (much as we might like to) rather than to correct the record. The following specimen is fairly recent coverage of what someone said, and it cries out for balance.

Not riding the Coeti Bus

To begin with, the very name Anglicanorum Coetibus requires closer examination than anyone has yet applied to it. As, Fr. Laurence Wells recently put it: "To date no one has picked up on the meaning of the term coetibus. This is the ablative (maybe dative) plural of the 4th declension noun coetus, translated 'meeting, assemblage.' The Vatican authorities could not bring themselves to describe TAC/ACA as a 'church' or even as an 'ecclesial community' (the term popular after Vatican II). Just an assemblage, a mob." Therefore, translated, Anglicanorum Coetibus could be "The Anglican mob."

But, the image of the Latin phrase is not one of fellows in pin-striped suits with violin cases under their arms, headed for a Chicago garage. It is more the image of a crowd in the street. Furthermore, being in the ablative case, it means the mob is being carried away or moving away from something. So, it suggests a mob distancing itself from Anglicanism. Remember, it is the Vatican that named their unilateral constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, so the implications we derive have come from their choice of a title. The final implication is simply to make use of the phrase that is suggested throughout the body of the constitution, "former Anglicans." For, that too is a valid interpretation of the name Anglicanorum Coetibus, and appears to be the intended meaning: "Former Anglicans."

In what follows you will see in full a story from The Church Times, but with our helpful comments interspersed throughout, a method we have used before on The Continuum.

Ordinariate: the sceptics ‘are eating humble pie’

by Bill Browder

(Fr. Robert Hart) RH: Right here, at the headline, I am forced to refute what has been said. I am a sceptic myself, and I will not be eating humble pie at all; neither crow, nor the dish they are serving.

A MEETING of bishops who have petitioned the Pope to be received into full communion while retaining an “Anglican” identity is to take place in Rome in Low Week.

It would be the culmination of the response to Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Constitution (Anglicanorum Coeti­bus) to establish personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans, Archbishop John Hepworth of the Traditional Angli­can Communion (TAC), a Con­tinuing Church, said on Wednesday.

RH: Please keep in mind that phrase "former Anglicans." It will prove very important as we proceed.

He was due in Rome in three weeks’ time for a meeting with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) after a series of regional TAC synods, and would then, two weeks after Easter, meet most of the bishops who had peti­tioned the Pope to make their formal response on the Ordinariates.

“The ball is in our court. We asked for this and this is what we got. This is becoming Anglican Catholics, not Roman Catholics,” Archbishop Hep­worth said, speaking from Australia.

(Rev. Canon John Hollister) JH: In current Roman jargon, “becoming Anglican Catholics, not Roman Catholics” is code for “becoming a church sui juris, i.e., a “uniate” body. Anglicanorum Coetibus makes it crystal clear that this is one thing that is not happening. Instead, it is expressly set out that the new “ordinariates” will be placed within the so-called “Latin Church” and thus, in Roman terminology, any transferee “former Anglicans” will most definitely be “Roman Catholics”, not “Anglican Catholics”.

RH: Only from a Roman Catholic perspective can Abp. Hepworth speak of Anglicans who adhere to the Affirmation of St. Louis as "becoming" Catholic in any sense of the word. I expect this from someone who knows only Roman Catholicism, but not from a man who claims in some way to be Anglican himself. It is, frankly, offensive. It indicates yet again that Abp. Hepworth cannot identify with the Anglican ethos, indeed, begging the question of whether he can even so much as understand it. I am an Anglican Catholic already, and I plan not to take part in the exodus.

The letters from the Vatican replying to all those who had res­ponded to the Pope’s offer had now been received. He had followed that with a pastoral letter to TAC members last week.

RH: Yes, a pastoral letter which seemed to have one purpose; to get around the clear meaning of the letters from the Vatican (which was one letter, really, copied and sent to each TAC bishop). That purpose was to present Rome's letter as an anticipated and welcome part of the the plan. In fact, that letter said to the TAC bishops, in effect, This constitution as written is all you get: No special deal. Take it or leave it.

“After an introduction about church unity, we talk about our original meeting with the CDF. They gave us advice and we followed it. A team of Roman Catholic bishops and scholars were helping us to reflect on unity. They provided a critique of the TAC, and we quote some of that back to them. The TAC wants to achieve communion while ‘main­taining those revered traditions of spirituality, liturgy, discipline and theo­logy that constitute the cherished and centuries-old heritage of Angli­can communities throughout the world’.

JH: Bear in mind that, so far as is demonstrated by the experience with “Book of Divine Worship” of the present “Anglican Use”, Rome’s idea of a permissible “Anglican liturgy,” is the 1979 BCP with the Novus Ordo Canons of Consecrations.

“So our way of doing theology is there, as is our way of discipline.

JH: Does he really think Richard Hooker will survive this transition?
RH: Or Andrewes, etc.?

Our group will have the right to elect our bishops.

JH: That’s not what the Apostolic Constitution said.

RH: In the context of the Roman Catholic Church, even if it were true, election of your own bishop may be granted theoretically; but, a RC bishop is not a bishop at all until the Pope appoints him. Even after consecration, he is not a bishop "until his name is read in the consistory in Rome." But, the text of Anglicanorum Coetibus makes it clear that the former Anglicans will be under the bishop of the local Roman Catholic Diocese, granting only that each local diocesan bishop has to allow for the structure of the ordinariate (which directly affects only the clergy who want to be postulants).

We asked the CDF (i.e. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome) for elec­tion by council. They laughed at us at first, but we got it. We are also working with a commission with Forward in Faith to produce our lit­urgy.

JH: Is this the same Forward in Faith, most UK members of which use the undiluted Novus Ordo Missae, which has about it nothing distinctively Anglican?

We signed the Catechism as ‘the most complete and authentic expres­sion and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time’.

“We did that to put our commit­ment beyond dispute, but we did not have to agree to Apostolicae Curae [which declares Anglican orders ab­solutely null and utterly void], be­cause that is not in the Cate­chism.”

JH: But, as Benedict XVI previously stated (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger), it is something that all Roman Catholics are required to assent to and abide by.

RH: About Apostolicae Curae, the point is academic. True, that Papal Bull is not a statement of dogma, but only of discipline, but it is nonetheless required that the Roman Catholic faithful behave as if all Papal statements are infallible unless and until they are rescinded. In fact, they are required to believe it unless and until they are told not to (a kind of discipline that Anglicans have never regarded as consistent with Reason). It is a small matter if Rome will not require each clergyman in the TAC who rides the Coeti Bus (to the dock where he swims the Tiber), to make some public statement about his "absolutely null and utterly void" orders. If he is accepted as a postulant and eventually becomes "ordained" "again," on the basis of the RC position on Anglican orders as stated in 1896, his actions will have said all that needs saying.

The laity, by the way, will have to be "confirmed" "again." Has anyone told them this? Conditional ordination and conditional confirmation have, in some cases, very real justification, related to the compromise of Holy Orders in churches of the Anglican Communion, and also the willful removal in the 1979 American Confirmation Rite of the Form stating the Intention. But, the 1896 Bull provides no valid reason for ana-confirmation or ana-ordination, conditional or not (as the case may never again be).

A consultation was taking place on “reordination in the TAC con­text”. “We separated from the Angli­can Church. Some left because of sacramental and doctrinal issues, and have got lost. We chose to take up ARCIC [the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commis­sion], and we have got what we wanted. People who said we could not are having to eat humble pie, and I am sinfully enjoying that.”

RH: Really? Did they get what they wanted? They requested various things which they placed under the heading "full corporate communion." They have stated a desire for different things at different times, ranging from a "Uniat" status to "inter-communion." All of these things imply a specific identity as at least Anglican-ish, in some way. They requested a way to have their own structure and a degree of self-determination.

To that request, with its variations, Anglicanorum Coetibus is really an answer of "no," with a different offer in return. The ordinariates will protect the former Anglicans from their new bishops (a problem with Catholic order in and of itself) in the event that any bishop is not eager to play by the new rules, that is, never saying no to Pastoral Provisions and some sort of so-called Anglican Use. But, the Canon Law and specific statements of the Constitution and Norms do not give any assurance of self-determination for the former Anglicans, not even to remain sort of Anglican-ish.

Anyone familiar with the Pastoral Provisions knows that most cases take on average at least a couple of years. When the Coeti Bus arrives in Roman territory, away from the mob world of Anglicanism, only the existing Roman Catholic clergy will be available to give care to the new arrivals. The clergy among the former Anglican arrivals will be laymen, unable to act as priests. Archbishop Hepworth himself, would not be allowed to receive Communion unless and until his own marriage and annulment issues are settled (by Anglican standards they were settled long ago, but that is not enough for Rome); and he would be in the category of a Roman Catholic priest returning to "Mother Church" after converting to a Protestant ecclesial group, having married, meaning lifelong laitization (as clearly spelled out in the constitution, and in accordance with Canon Law as cited in the constitution).

Who knows if they might speed up The Pastoral Provisions process that is part of Anglicanorum Coetibus? Had the TAC been granted what they really asked for, the situation would have allowed the former Anglican clergy a fast track to recognition as clergy, and the authority to minister as such, in a venue of either "inter-communion" or of a recognized "Anglican Rite" like the Eastern Rites. But, as it is in fact written, under strictly RC authority, what is it, of anything remotely Anglican, that they think might endure for any length of time?

We cannot, therefore, accept Abp. Hepworth's claim that they got what they wanted. What they got was a firm "no," with a counter offer.

The Archbishop said that he was issuing TAC’s original 2007 petition to the CDF at the same time as his pastoral letter.

In his letter, he writes: “Re-ordination is an issue because the Church requires absolute certainty in the matter of future sacramental life. I have been told that the TAC should understand this because we ourselves moved beyond the Angli­can Communion in order to ensure the validity of sacramental life. Rome is now seeking the same assurance.”

JH: If Rome were (a) truly concerned about certainty in sacramental life, and (b) believed in what Leo XIII stated in Apostolicae curae, then Rome would be asking the TAC bishops to reordain the Roman ones, on the ground that 19th Century and later Roman ordinations fail the tests for validity set forth in that Bull.

RH: Actually, that Bull does, in effect, declare all orders everywhere to be invalid. The logic of it in light of true history would have canceled out valid orders from the very beginning, as Anglicans have pointed out since 1897 in Saepius Officio.

Now, the theory about absolute certainty in sacraments is quite right, a principle that all Anglicans should believe. But, judging the validity of sacraments by the standard of Rome's 1896 Bull is not acceptable to any Anglican. Sadly, self-contradictory as it is in certain ways, that 1896 Bull is still the law in the RCC. Anglicans should be content to allow the silliness, bad history and overall pathetic scholarship of Apostolicae Curae to remain strictly Rome's problem, as it is not our problem. If I were a Roman Catholic it would only embarrass me.

The Apostolic Constitution “speaks of Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. There at the outset are the three critical factors: Anglicans, full com­munion and Catholic Church.”

JH: And the Apostolic Constitution deals with these as follows: (1) Former Anglicans must now become Roman Catholics. (2) Full communion means complete submission to all preexisting Roman doctrinal positions. (3) The Catholic Church is solely the Roman Church, as understood on Roman terms. One becomes a member of the Catholic Church only by complete submission to Roman ways.

RH: Abp. Hepworth's closing line is misleading. The same document that says "Anglicans" at the outset, afterward calls them "former Anglicans." He claims to have attained some victory, exhibiting an attitude of personal triumph over Roman Catholics and Continuing Anglicans who, by contradicting his commentary, properly interpret Anglicanorum Coetibus. And, once again he uses the term "Catholic Church" not as Anglicans have always used it, based on the Creeds; rather he means those under the authority of the See of Rome, using the term in a manner that has always been offensive to Anglicans. The terms of this Roman constitution are clear: Entering full communion with Rome means you are Anglican no longer. So what we see at the outset has the opposite meaning from what Abp. Hepworth sees in it.

Regarding Archbishop Louis Falk's statement

Archbishop Louis Falk of the Anglican Church in America has issued a statement on the website of that jurisdiction concerning a set of "complementary norms" allegedly in addition to the Norms already stated in the new Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus . In it he has said the following:

"An initial set of Complementary Norms has been issued by the Confraternity [sic] for the Doctrine of the Faith, which we be [sic] discussed in detail by representatives of that body and of the TAC College of Bishops within the near future. We are now asking members of the ACA (and other TAC provinces) to study the Norms and then pose such question [sic] as may occur. (Some already have, such as: Question: Will we be able to continue to have married priests indefinitely? Answer: Yes. Question: Will those of us who were formerly Roman Catholics be excluded from the Anglican Ordinariates? Answer No. Question: Will we loose control over our Church finances and property? Answer: No) There will be more. These can be sent to your own Bishop, and he will see that they get to the appropriate TAC representatives. Your concerns, as well as your thoughts and prayers, are an essential element and a vital part of this process."

Up until this whole business started I have tried to be "ecumenical" and to hope for some sign of good faith from the ACA/TAC. Sadly, I must state very bluntly that it is very obvious that what Archbishop Falk has promised his people in this statement cannot be reconciled to the new constitution. We have read the constitution put forth by Rome. I stand by all the essays written heretofore both by Rev. Canon Charles Nalls, and by myself. I do not know why these promises are written on the ACA website, but I know that Rome cannot grant these "complementary norms" and also implement the new constitution; neither could Rome grant these "complementary norms" without first undertaking a major overhaul of its Canon Laws and establishing in their place new polity.

I may be placing a target on my back, but I must protest: The statement of Archbishop Falk cannot be true. Why are they doing this? What is the purpose? That I cannot answer: But I can read the Apostolic Constitution for myself, with the added advantage of understanding Roman Catholicism and specifically the Pastoral Provisions to the boundary line, the limits to which it has been extended. The reality does not match the rhetoric.

Important odds and ends

First, with reluctance, we have to accept Sandra McColl's decision to resign as a blog owner here. Her decision was triggered by my recent post, Still I say, swim the Tiber without me. Fair enough. She believes I have misrepresented the intentions and beliefs of Archbishop Hepworth and other TAC bishops who are pressing for their own inter communion, or "Uniat" status, or Personal Prelature with the See of Rome. In particular, she found one comment to be over the top. Actually, she is right that the comment (of mine) was over the top. I went too far in that comment, and spoke of Rome as being like a woman with a social disease (gee, as we all know, it is simply off limits to remember Rome's sexual child abuse scandal. Hell, the little brats will get over it-right? Of course I don't mean that- I just thought to demonstrate what would be really insensitive...!). I followed up by identifying very real problems, and one ecumenical hindrance, that tend to be overlooked, when I continued by saying, "When Rome has demonstrated that new policies of internal discipline have cleaned up the homosexual clergy problem, and the pederast scandal, and is willing to come to a table to discuss old theological debates, she may seem a lot more attractive. But, time is required on all these points." While Sandra was a blog owner here, she had the opportunity to make every bit as loud a noise as I make, and it was my idea to give her that megaphone. She was given the same amount of floor space that the rest of us have, that is, virtually unlimited. Which means, we extended a lot of trust.

Second: What are we discussing?

However, as I have kept my megaphone, I will not apologize for choosing to use it.

Let us ask, what do we know about the purpose of Archbishop Hepworth? (The Archbishop may comment here any time without fear of editing or deletion; if he does not trust me, he may send his comment to Edward Pacht.) We are told that he wants to preserve Anglicanism's distinct rich heritage, and that he believes that without the strength of Rome it cannot survive. The internal pressures of the Anglican Communion disable it from that purpose, and the Anglican Continuum is too small and fragmented. At least, that is what he told me last Summer in our approximately ninety minutes of face to face discussion in Timonium, Maryland. There is, we must grant, a certain logic in that.

Anglicanism is not burdened by ambitious claims to be infallible, and therefore not excessively burdened by having to treat every specifically Anglican precedent as if it were part of the Tradition of the Apostolic Church. Neither are we burdened by a "One True Church" theory that limits the boundaries of God's Holy Catholic Church to our own little portion of it, indeed our own branch (yes, I said "branch"- branch, branch branch). However, Rome is burdened with every specifically Roman precedent, whether or not it can be drawn out of "the Faith once delivered to the saints" as understood through Scripture by means of Universal Consensus and Antiquity. And, Rome is burdened by its own version of the One True Church theory, i.e., that without the See of Rome an ecclesial group, or even a true particular church, does not possess the "fullness" of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, if Rome decided to come to the rescue of Anglican distinctives, that rescue would create a precedent that must be defended forever as having been infallible, unless a later decision, whether conciliar with papal assent, or simply by papal decree or "infallible utterance," overturns it, assuming it had never risen to the level of dogma (are you following this?). So, with great care taken by Rome, some measure of Anglican distinctives could be preserved; and, of course, with Rome's help, given its great strength and sheer size, Anglicanism would have a happy home.

Reality check

Here I will state my robust if polite objections.

Why would the See that produced Apostolicae Curae, which (on the basis of scholarship so poor that it does not rise to the level of pathetic), condemns Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void," have any intention of preserving Anglicanism's rich distinctive heritage? If we have learned anything from the Anglican Use experiment, it is that even when Rome tries to be nice to us, they demonstrate a level of truculence and arrogance, or invincible ignorance, that is truly offensive to those who know and love the Anglican Liturgy. The evidence suggests that "Anglican" Use exists in order to disappear; not to disappear as something separated into a recovered unity of the Church; but simply to disappear. However, "Anglican" Use may well disappear for all we should care, for it is about as Anglican as Italian Opera.

I believe that the See of Rome is interested in absorbing Anglicanism, if only to make it disappear, by converting all of us one at a time if necessary. Frankly, given their doctrine of the Church, I expect this of them, and believe that the motivation of many individuals among their number is truly charitable. But, as the old prayer goes, "God save me from my enemies, and from my well-meaning friends." I know that the motto of those TAC bishops who follow Archbishop Hepworth is "inclusion, not absorption," and I am not about to argue that they are anything less than sincere. Of course, for all we know, this whole thing may prove to be merely academic anyway.

Because I said so

But, here is what I was addressing in the other post. I will quote, therefore, once again from an email I received:

"[This man] had been a delegate to the ACA Diocese of the Midwest Synod _this_ summer. This man has been an Anglican for many years and said he was simply, 'appalled' by the presentations at the synod. He stated they basically came out and declared Anglicanism a failure and that the Romans had it right."

The problem has less to do with communications between Archbishop Hepworth's trusted advisers and Rome than with what is happening on the home front. As soon as the TAC bishops had sent their 2007 letter to Rome, requesting Communion between their jurisdiction and "the Holy See," we were informed that no interviews would be given. I was criticized, along with others on this blog, for allowing speculation to be expressed. Some of that speculation was fearful, some was exuberant, some was apocalyptic and messianic about recovery of unity (as if a rearrangement further dividing the Anglican Continuum would be a fulfillment of John 17:21-as if that was a prophecy, which it is not, etc.), and some was even scornful and derisive. Nonetheless, just what did they expect? The command was sent through the ranks, right down to the laity, not to speculate; and that was entirely unreasonable.

I spent many years as a layman, and was a father of four before I was called "Father" by men old enough to be my father. I know how Anglican people feel about their churches and about the teaching and traditions that have been handed down, and that they want to hand down to their children and grandchildren. On that basis, I say that the order to laity in the TAC not to speculate was not only unreasonable, but unintentionally (I am sure) downright cruel. Anglicans, like the Eastern Orthodox, do not consider the Church to be the property of the clergy and hierarchy. The Church belongs to God, and belongs to all of us too. We do not "Pray, pay and obey." To condemn that, as some might, as "too Protestant" or "too democratic" is to condemn the love we have for our churches, for our children, for the truth and for God Himself. To conceal the details of a new model of automobile, or military plans, until it is time to reveal something completed, is understandable. But, the Church is none of those things; the Church is the people who belong to it, with their convictions, their practice of devotions, and their hope for the future. Blind trust and acceptance of "come what may" will never happen, and that should have been understood and foreseen two years ago. If such secrecy is required by Rome, does this not also show something that is, for now, more evidence of a measure of incompatibility?

What began turning up in my email and in my snail mail, was more than weekly appeals from various lay members of the ACA/TAC, to help them understand where their bishops were planning to take them, their churches, their children and their future. Well, I certainly had no answer that I could give to anybody. And then lines about "500 years of mistakes" and "a failed 450 year-old experiment," coming from Archbishop Hepworth himself, and from Bishop Langburg respectively, could not have been timed better by an absolute adversary to their cause.

The trap door

Furthermore, as if Anglo-Catholics have not been culpable in the last generation for spreading misinformation and ignorance (with help from the opposite side of the spectrum) about Anglicanism itself, even in general about the very meaning of words like "Protestant" and "Catholic," treating the See of Rome like the magic answer to the woes of modern Anglicans, has had, really, only one real effect in a Romewards direction: It has caused many individuals to leave Anglicanism due only to ignorance, and misinformation. I have observed that most of these people become miserable, and miss the richness they left behind. The real motion is not between jurisdictions and communions, but the motion of innocent people falling through a trap door that responsible parties need to nail shut.

Summary

If all this makes me come across as an enemy to the leaders of the TAC, let me say only that I am an opponent of what I perceive to be happening; but not an enemy. Furthermore, those leaders may have the floor to set me straight, along with other comment writers, if they choose. Indeed, they may send an essay to any one of us (I suggest to Ed). Essays and comments from bishops will be posted in their entirety. This is the issue right now in the Continuing Church, so we may as well discuss what is already on so many minds.

Bishop Chislett on being 'in communion' with Rome

I noticed on The Messenger website an article on this topic by Bishop Chislett of the ACCA (TAC). The sentence that jumped out at me was, 'The 2007 letter from the TAC bishops to the Holy See sought a way of moving to the next level, and signified our desire to continue the ARCIC process to full ecclesial reunion where the Anglican Communion as a whole effectively left off.' This is what I have tried to say in earlier comboxes. You can read the full article here. And, of course, you can comment here. Just remember, Bishop Chislett reads, and occasionally comments, on this blog, so comment as if he is in the room and can hear you.

CORRECTION

Or More of the same.

from Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

UPDATED: Traditional Anglican Communion set to Enter Catholic Church?

By Deacon Keith Fournier
1/29/2009

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) – UPDATED: Catholic Online promised to update our readers on this extraordinary story. So, we now pass this on: The National Catholic Register cites a "Vatican Source" as saying that "nothing's been decided" by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Reports abound that the Congregation has recommended the creation of a personal prelature as the vehicle through which to receive the members of the Traditional Anglican Communion into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. The Register contends that an official at the Congregation spoke with their correspondent Edward Pentin today saying,“It’s something that has appeared on the blogosphere and then been reiterated, but the truth is nothing’s been decided.” We set forth our original story below believing that the sources reporting this exciting news and the history of the dialogue support its accuracy.

The rest can be read by clicking the link above.

Today's news

TAC to be offered "Personal Prelature" by the pope.
(This was what Archbishop John Hepworth had said might happen, telling this to Albion Land in 2007. Last Summer, he told me that he expected even more, but at least this much)


This report is from the Telegraph UK Co.

The Pope is preparing to offer the Traditonal Anglican Communion, a group of half a million dissident Anglicans, its own personal prelature by Rome, according to reports this morning.

"History may be in the making", reports The Record. "It appears Rome is on the brink of welcoming close to half a million members of the Traditional Anglican Communion into membership of the Roman Catholic Church. Such a move would be the most historic development in Anglican-Catholic relations in the last 500 years. But it may also be a prelude to a much greater influx of Anglicans waiting on the sidelines, pushed too far by the controversy surrounding the consecration of practising homosexual bishops, women clergy and a host of other issues."

Here is Anthony Barich's report in full. My guess is that, if this happens, Anglo-Catholics in the C of E will move to Rome in unprecedented numbers under a similar arrangement. More on this later. Also, see American Catholic, which broke the story on the web.

The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to recommend the Traditional Anglican Communion be accorded a personal prelature akin to Opus Dei, if talks between the TAC and the Vatican aimed at unity succeed, it is understood.

The TAC is a growing global community of approximately 400,000 members that took the historic step in 2007 of seeking full corporate and sacramental communion with the Catholic Church - a move that, if fulfilled, will be the biggest development in Catholic-Anglican relations since the English Reformation under King Henry VIII.

TAC members split from the Canterbury-based Anglican Communion headed by Archbishop Rowan Williams over issues such as its ordination of women priests and episcopal consecrations of women and practising homosexuals.

The TAC's case appeared to take a significant step forwards in October 2008 when it is understood that the CDF decided not to recommend the creation of a distinct Anglican rite within the Roman Catholic Church - as is the case with the Eastern Catholic Churches - but a personal prelature, a semi-autonomous group with its own clergy and laity.Opus Dei was the first organisation in the Catholic Church to be recognised as a personal prelature, a new juridical form in the life of the Church. A personal prelature is something like a global diocese without boundaries, headed by its own bishop and with its own membership and clergy.

Because no such juridical form of life in the Church had existed before, the development and recognition of a personal prelature took Opus Dei and Church officials decades to achieve.

An announcement could be made soon after Easter this year. It is understood that Pope Benedict XVI, who has taken a personal interest in the matter, has linked the issue to the year of St Paul, the greatest missionary in the history of the Church.

The Basilica of St Paul outside the Walls could feature prominently in such an announcement for its traditional and historical links to Anglicanism. Prior to the English Reformation it was the official Church of the Knights of the Garter.

The TAC's Primate, Adelaide-based Archbishop John Hepworth, told The Record he has also informed the Holy See he wants to bring all the TAC's bishops to Rome for the beatification of Cardinal Henry Newman, also an Anglican convert to the Catholic Church, as a celebration of Anglican-Catholic unity.

Although Cardinal Newman's beatification is considered to be likely by many, the Church has made no announcement that Cardinal Newman will be beatified.

Archbishop Hepworth personally wrote to Pope Benedict in April 2007 indicating that the TAC planned a meeting of its world bishops, where it was anticipated they would unanimously agree to sign the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to seek full union with the Catholic Church. This took place at a meeting of the TAC in the United Kingdom. TAC bishops placed the signed Catechism on the altar of the most historical Anglican and Catholic Marian shrine in the UK, the National Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in Norfolk, before posting it up in the main street in an effort to gather public support.

Archbishop Hepworth, together with TAC bishops Robert Mercer and Peter Wilkinson, presented the signed items personally to Fr Augustine Di Noia OP, the CDF's senior ecumenical theologian, on October 11, 2007, in a meeting organised by CDF secretary Archbishop Angelo Amato.

Bishop Mercer, a monk who is now retired and living in England, is the former Anglican Bishop of Matabeleland, Zimbabwe. Bishop Wilkinson is the TAC's diocesan bishop in Canada.

TAC's Canadian Bishop Peter Wilkinson has close ties to the Catholic hierarchy in British Columbia, which has also met the CDF on the issue. He has already briefed Vancouver archdiocesan priests.

One potential problem for the Holy See would be the TAC's bishops, most of whom are married. Neither the Roman Catholic nor Eastern Catholic churches permit married bishops.

Before he became Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger discussed the issue of married bishops in the 1990s during meetings of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission exploring unity, before the Anglican Church's ordination of women priests derailed it.

One former Anglican priest who became a Catholic priest told The Record that the ideal end for the TAC would be to become the 28th Rite within the Catholic Church, along with the Eastern Churches, which have the same sacraments and are recognised by Rome.

The TAC's request is the closest any section of the Anglican Church has ever come to full communion with Rome because the TAC has set no preconditions. Instead it has explicitly submitted itself entirely to the Holy See's decisions.

Six days prior to the October 11 meeting between TAC bishops and the Holy See - on October 5 - the TAC's bishops, vicars-general of dioceses without bishops, and theological advisers who assisted in a plenary meeting signed a declaration of belief in the truth of the whole Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The declaration said, in part: "We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium, which we have signed, together with this letter as attesting to the faith we aspire to teach and hold."

Statements about the seriousness of the division between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church caused by issues such as the ordination of women priests were emphasised at the wordwide Lambeth Conference held in the UK in 2008.

At the conference, three Catholic cardinals - Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Archbishop of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and the Prefect for the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, Ivan Dias, the Pope's personal envoy, all addressed the issue.

Cardinal Dias, who favours welcoming traditionalist Anglicans into the Catholic Church, bluntly told the Anglican Communion's 650 bishops that they are heading towards "spiritual Alzheimer's" and "ecclesial Parkinson's".

"By analogy, (Alzheimer's and Parkinson's) symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's."

Cardinal Kasper warned Anglican bishops that Rome would turn to smaller ecumenical communities if the Anglican Communion at large proved unapproachable ecumenically.

This is bad news for the Anglican Communion, but good news for the TAC.

Archbishop Hepworth and Anglican Orders

Well, I don't like the treatment I have been given for my efforts to give the floor to Archbishop Hepworth, by none other than the man himself. I am still reeling from the results of my recent efforts to let him represent his own position, clear up rumors and answer speculation. Nonetheless, since he has now granted very much the same interview to David Virtue, but allowing it to be the second "first exclusive," I see that one of the particular points the Archbishop made needs the complement of a direct quotation that he had given to me.

First of all, this is from the VOL interview:

VOL: When the former Bishop of London went to Rome, he was "conditionally re-ordained" a priest rather than having to undergo re-ordination. Do you see that as a possibility for the TAC's clergy?

HEPWORTH: The way in which pastoral provision currently works allows Anglican clergymen to tender evidence of the validity of Anglican ordination. In fact, the re-ordination is a response to the circumstances within Anglicanism which vary for good and ill in the last century as Cardinal Kasper recently said, and re-ordination is a necessary assurance to the good consciences of those with whom unity is sought.

VOL: Some fear, if conditional re-ordination is not allowed, that sacramental rites performed by TAC clergy prior to their re-ordination would be considered invalid. Do you see the difference between "conditional" and unconditional re-ordination as important?

HEPWORTH: No. It is important to individual Anglo-Catholics who in practice have responded to Apostolicae Curae by seeking to involve other than Anglicans in their ordinations, not necessarily as a criticism of their own orders but as an act of pastoral generosity towards the wider catholic church.

Add to that what he told me in Timonium, Maryland on July 31st:

Since the issue of Anglican Orders has been raised by reader's comments, the Archbishop had this to say for readers of the Continuum: "We would not be ordaining or saying Mass if we believed our Orders were invalid. That would be sacrilege. There must be room for our conscience."

.
This does indeed ring true. When he gave me the above quotation, I mentioned to him that Brian Taylor had documented1 the Anglican reason for seeking the Infusion of Old Catholic orders in 1932 via co-consecration, initially in the consecration of Rev. Graham Brown to the episcopate with the Old Catholic Bishop of Haarlem assisting. The purpose was to help make Anglican orders more acceptable to Rome in the event of a possible Reunion, as Taylor documented by quoting correspondence between leaders of the Church of England, including then Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Lang. As I was mentioning this, Archbishop Hepworth nodded his head in obvious recognition of Taylor's work. Hence the words of Archbishop Hepworth: "...an act of pastoral generosity towards the wider catholic church."

This demonstrates, however, an ongoing factor that appears to be one weakness in the whole strategy. These bold steps are being discussed on one end as if only one party needs to be sold this whole idea, namely Rome. I can well appreciate Archbishop Hepworth's generous offer to make the orders of TAC acceptable to the larger Catholic Church, while at the same time insisting that this is not, in any way whatsoever, to be taken as a statement of doubt concerning Anglican Orders. He holds firmly, judging from what he said to me, to the Anglican position as stated in Saepius Officio, and any willingness to submit, in future, to conditional ordinations and consecrations would be simply a gracious act for wider catholic unity. But, now he must sell that to the clergy of the TAC and to the lay people as well. He has already let the cat out of the bag on VOL.

The comparison to the Old Catholic Infusion, though I had raised it myself, is not an exact parallel. Co-consecration did not involve any sort of "re-ordination" or "re-consecration," conditional or otherwise. So, this may be a tough sell in some places.

I trust that Archbishop Hepworth appreciates the helpful clarification I have given here to the answer he gave on VOL, in order to avoid widespread panic; since what appears on VOL may have led some members of the TAC to worry about what he thinks of Anglican Orders (if e-mails to me from TAC people today and yesterday are any indication of facts on the ground) --Speaking of generousity.

1. In his 1995 paper, published in Great Britain, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.

Archbishop Hepworth and the missing thread

This deletion was not our idea. Archbishop Hepworth requested it of Albion Land. I wish this had not been requested. Obviously, all who read the post knew that it contained nothing derogatory about the TAC or Archbishop Hepworth. Some items had been classified as "not for publication," and I assure our readers that each and every such item was treated as off the record, and so they were not posted. In our view, the exposition that Archbishop Hepworth made regarding the TAC´s conversations with Rome could only serve to allay doubts about the TAC´s commitment to Anglicanism, doubts that have been repeatedly raised over the years since those conversations began. However, if the archbishop insists on acting in secrecy, that is a choice for him to make and for the faithful of the TAC to judge. The Continuum is not a player in this game, and it is not for us to judge, though our general view is that transparency is generally always the best policy in governance, including the governance of the Church.

They Did Sign It

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

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

I quote in part:

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

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

"On our acceptance of the catholic faith:

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

It can't be any clearer than that.

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

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

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

More light on this TAC-Rome business

By now it should be clear to regular readers that I am objective on the matter of the TAC and Rome, and that this objectivity is described best in apophatic terms: My position is not opposition, but it is not cheer leading. I am posting the words of a letter that was sent out to TAC churches by the office of Archbishop Hepworth some time (not dated) after the famous Portsmouth meeting, because it sheds some light on this mysterious subject.

I will quote portions, and make a few comments.

Seventeen years ago, just after a group of Anglican refugees had banded together as the “Traditional Anglican Communion”, its leaders met in Rome to talk unity with the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Their dreams and expectations that the meetings between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the establishing of an International Commission, the pledges of goodwill on both sides, would lead to unity had just been dashed. The long disintegration of the Anglican Communion – bitterly divided over the most fundamental issues of the Christian faith – had begun.

In those seventeen years the Traditional Anglican Communion has responded to many calls from those whose churches have been drawn into the upheaval. We have provided havens of peace and healing as people struggled to maintain the faith and rebuild. Churches, schools, seminaries and orphanages have all been started from scratch. Now we are 41 countries strong, and a force to be reckoned with, and our dreams of a united church, of the churches of Rome and Canterbury reunited after five centuries of hurtful division, have never faltered.

For those who may not know, efforts between the See of Canterbury and the See of Rome seemed to have real substance after the famous occasion when Pope Paul VI gave his ring to the 100th Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Michael Ramsey in 1966. Archbishop Ramsey always wore it after that. In the years that followed serious efforts got underway, culminating in ARCIC. As some sort of gesture I fail to understand, Archbishop Rowan Williams gave the same ring back, so to speak, by presenting it to Pope John Paul II a few months before his death.

Two important facts must be taken into account. First of all, the initial effort was to achieve real unity, but after 1976 and the "ordination" of women in certain churches of the Anglican Communion, the talks were less promising. In 1992 the Church of England itself began to practice this innovation of women's "ordination" also, despite urging from the See of Rome not to do so. Since then, all ecumenism between Rome and Canterbury has been a mere formality.

The second fact is this: When the TAC speaks of restoring this hope of unity, it is only right to consider that the goal they speak of is not exactly the same as that of Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI. In the city of Little Rock, Arkansas, during a service there in 1967, the Archbishop of Canterbury said: "The Pope and I walked arm in arm out in St. Peter's Basilica and there we bowed and dedicated ourselves in a common dedication, the task of unifying the Church. We did not mean we were going to unify the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church only, but we meant we were going to unify all Christendom and all the churches of the world. By unifying them, we did not mean just establishing diplomatic recognition among denominations, but we were going to unify all of them into one church. That is the task that is before us today, to unify all Christendom into the Holy Catholic Church"1

That may sound too big to have been substantive. However, consider that at the same time that the See of Canterbury was talking seriously with Rome, they were engaged in an equally serious effort with the Orthodox Patriarchates to establish unity, that the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox Church would become "one Church." In those days it was normal practice for Orthodox bishops to allow the faithful of their communion to receive the sacraments in Anglican churches, giving them letters granting this permission as long as no Orthodox church was available within a reasonable distance to where they resided. This hope for unity was dashed also, and by the same heresy, namely women's "ordination." In 1978, after it became clear that churches within the Anglican Communion were “ordaining” women and intent on spreading this practice, Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras remarked: “…the theological dialogue [between the Orthodox and the Anglicans] will continue, although now simply as an academic and informative exercise, and no longer as an ecclesial endeavor aiming at the union of the two churches.”2

The similarity between what the TAC seeks now, and what was sought before the women's "ordination" error, is obvious. But, the difference is, evidently, that no corresponding effort is taking place between them and Orthodoxy. Therefore, it is not entirely accurate to invoke that history as something completely parallel. My own hope is to see the "Eastern lung" considered as well. The real hope of unity in which the Anglican Communion once played a unique role, extended to the potential healing of the Great Schism itself, over the London Bridge, so to speak. But, just as the London Bridge now sits in the Arizona desert, this hope of unity is no longer over the Thames. Nonetheless, to see that hope restored will require a larger vision than unity with the See of Rome.

Here is more from Archbishop Hepworth's letter:

On 9^th October last I returned to Rome with Bishops Mercer and Wilkinson. Bishop Mercer is a monk of the famous community in Mirfield, England, and was Anglican Bishop of Matabeleland in Zimbabwe. The late Pope attended Evensong in his Cathedral. Bishop Wilkinson has corresponded with the then Cardinal Ratzinger about the content of a revived Anglican Divine Office. This time we met with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the body appointed by the Holy See to receive applications for “Corporate Reunion” from churches that are not in Communion with the Holy See, and we carried a letter solemnly signed by the Bishops and Vicars General of the Traditional Anglican Communion during a Votive Mass for Unity in the venerable church of Saint Agatha in Portsmouth, England, where we had just completed a powerful Plenary Meeting.

Between these two visits to Rome a great work of teaching, building communities, developing leadership and guiding the growing trust between our Communion and the Roman Catholic Church has been maintained against the almost impossible odds of meagre resources and fierce opposition. Our letter rehearses the long and frustrating history of attempts to unite (in the words of Paul VI) the “church of Rome and the church of Canterbury”. It dwells on the reaction of those who dreamed that at last Anglicans were to become “Anglican Catholics” as the Anglican Communion took step after step to distance itself from the unity that had been promised.

The only problem I see here is this line: "...those who dreamed that at last Anglicans were to become 'Anglican Catholics.'" With all due respect to the Archbishop of the largest Continuing jurisdiction, this line is not something that most Anglicans can accept. We already are Anglican Catholics. Everyone of us is fully catholic in the true sense of that word, and we cannot enter the Catholic Church because we are already in it. Therefore, his phrase does not represent the Anglican mind. It is acceptable to Anglicans only in a denominational sense, that is, respecting the name by which the Roman Communion calls itself. I assume that is the meaning, but it requires clarification to avoid giving offense to fellow Anglicans.

More from Archbishop Hepworth:

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

On our Communion:

“a worldwide community of Anglican Christians has united under the name of The Traditional Anglican Communion for three main purposes:

To identify, reaffirm and consolidate in its community the elements… conduct that mark the Church of Christ…

To seek as a body full and visible communion, particularly eucharistic communion, in Christ, with the Roman Catholic Church …

To achieve such communion while maintaining those revered traditions … that constitute the cherished and centuries-old heritage of Anglican communities throughout the world.

On our acceptance of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome:

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.

These words themselves mostly affirm neither Universal Primacy, nor the 1870 innovation of Papal Infallibility; but may in fact be in accord with nothing more than what can be found in ancient writings. Dom Gregory Dix's Jurisdiction in the Early Church (out of print, for no good reason) documents the appellate nature of "teaching authority" exercised by the See of Rome even during the ante-Nicene period. The debatable point is in the words, "a perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity." That exceeds any consensus to be found among Catholic Anglicans.

More from the letter:

On our acceptance of the catholic faith:

“We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…”

These words are subject to interpretation. Anglicans are very good at not saying anything too strongly; therefore such qualifiers as "in this moment of time" followed by the equally ingenius, "is found in," are in the best eirenic tradition. In other words, just what does this mean? For example, "in this moment of time" we have no better expression of Christian morality as applied to modern problems of ethics created by the advances of modern science, particularly medical science and how it relates to the corruption of law. "Is found in..." can be taken to mean that truth is to be found there, not that everything in it is right. We await clarification.

Here is more of Archbishop Hepworth's letter:

The bishops affirmed their faith in matters that have until now divided them from the Catholic Church, and finally, for the first time, they made an unambiguous appeal to the Holy See: “Driven by these realizations, which we must now in good conscience bring to the attention of the Holy See, we seek a communal and ecclesial way of being Anglican Catholics in communion with the Holy See, at once treasuring the full expression of catholic faith and treasuring our tradition within which we have come to this moment. We seek the guidance of the Holy See as to the fulfillment of these our desires and those of the churches in which we have been called to serve.”

After presenting these dreams and desires to the Holy See, I was authorized to release this statement:

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

We have all heard reports that the bishops of the TAC signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church, opened on the altar there in Portsmouth. But, from all of their statements it seems that this is not true, and what was signed was, in fact, the letter asking for full communion with Rome. 3

Archbishop Hepworth appears to be using the term "The Catholic Church" with ecumenical sensitivity, that is, as the official name of that Communion. Used that way, it is no more offensive than the term "the Orthodox Church," or frankly, as the Scots and Americans called Anglican churches, "the Episcopal Church." After all, that last one might seem to imply that no one else has bishops.

These words, "The bishops affirmed their faith in matters that have until now divided them from the Catholic Church..." state that they are not throwing the Anglican baby out with the bathwater. They make it clear that Anglicans have differences with the teaching of Rome, and that these differences require discussion. This is absolutely necessary. Anglicanism is not English culture (not to an American like me), and it is not simply married clergy and well constructed liturgy. We do have doctrinal standards and a few differences with the See of Rome.

This letter does not answer every question, nor lay to rest the potential for continued speculation. But, it helps to shed a bit more light for those of us who are not privy to these proceedings. In any case, we have this prayer in our BCP:

O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly, union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

_____

1. M.L. Moser, Jr., Ecumenicalism under the Spotlight, Challenge Press, pp. 22-23. These words were quoted there.
2. As quoted in Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement, (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), p.3
3. I am prepared to be proved wrong. I could ask Bishop Florenza, but I have too much respect for him to bother him with a question about such a thing, in light of their commitment not to give interviews at this time.