Ordinariates and Business Combinations

The following article was submitted by Fr. Michael Gray of The Traditional Anglican Church (TTAC).

* * *

I suppose we are all familiar with being “taken over” as customers, perhaps as employees.  One day we banked with Abbey National, the next it is Santander, and of course we have no say in the matter, except to take our custom elsewhere.

This can happen in matters of religion.  At the level of the individual parish, many Anglicans will have suffered from the decision (whether made on the authority of the priest alone or with a parish council) to change the whole ethos of worship without regard for those who are not content.  Many Continuing Anglicans have suffered this, perhaps several times (and therefore have an instinctive fear that the Ordinariate means yet more change, irrespective of the theological merits).

But it can also happen at a higher level.  Anglicanism is of course, as regards England, the product of a series of Acts of Parliament (breaking with Rome, imposing a form of reformation, returning to Rome, imposing a subtly different form of reformation, abolishing the bishops and the liturgy, restoring them) in none of which the overwhelming majority of the faithful had any say.  This is a continuing phenomenon in the United Kingdom.  There will still be some alive who were by Act of Parliament removed from the Church of England when it was disestablished in Wales and forbidden to function there.  It is ultimately Parliament, and not General Synod, which will decide whether there are women “bishops” (state officials appointed by the Prime Minister) in the Church of England.  Nor is this confined to Anglicanism.  Methodism was substantially reunited by Act of Parliament.  The “United Reformed Church” was created by Act of Parliament.  Sometimes, limited provision was made for dissenters (so under a pretext of unity making three bodies out of two).  Those who benefit from a separation of Church and State (so that such legislation is impossible) may indeed feel themselves fortunate.

Now the period of waiting for the Ordinariates is stressful, and it is tempting to prefer the business model (or the power of the state) simply because it gets the matter out of the way quickly.  But Bishops are not company directors.  Nor do they have the power of a sovereign Parliament.  The laity are not passive consumers, or victims of decisions which they cannot influence.  Maybe we would benefit from studying Newman On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine!

A particular factor in Continuing Anglicanism generally is the sense of past betrayal already mentioned and the natural reaction to it.  “Never again” led to very defensively worded constitutions, so that any change was as difficult as possible.  Such constitutions were never wholly realistic.  In the case of the United Kingdom, seven sacraments were affirmed in accordance with the universal Church, the Affirmation of St. Louis (and so on) but none of the authorised prayer books made provision for the anointing of the sick and the simultaneous affirmation of the 39 Articles in the constitution might reasonably be held to imply that such anointing was a “corrupt following of the Apostles.”  Few if any parishes literally conformed to the constitutionally authorised prayer books in their worship.  For a time, this did not do much harm, though some of us would prefer to mean (and do) what we say.  But as soon as change becomes unavoidable, defensive constitutions are, to say the least, a complication.

Whether we like it or not, Anglicanorum coetibus has determined that the process of entry will not be by the power of a few, but by the decision of each of the many.  I am sure this is right both as a matter of moral theology and pastorally.  We could do worse than to review the Prayer Book rite for baptism of those “able to answer for themselves.”  The candidate must promise “that [he] will renounce the devil and all his work, and constantly believe God's holy Word, and obediently keep his commandments.”  The Catechism and Order of Confirmation require the same of those baptised in infancy.  Decision is essential to the faith.

Now entry into the Ordinariate is not by baptism, but it is by decision, by a clear personal choice expressed.  We are to be treated as persons “able to answer for themselves.”  This is in itself a blessing, and I have no qualms about it being given liturgical expression in chrismation, for the blessing of the Church naturally responds to the decision of the candidate.  There are of course technical issues of what meaning attaches to detached parts of the original integrated sacrament of baptism, but they are for another posting, perhaps.  Suffice it that the early Church used such gestures for the reconciliation of schismatics; I do not have the arrogance to seek exemption, and pray to have the humility to receive the blessing of unity.

But since there is a choice, it is a human probability that some of us will not make that choice, and, for once in the history of the church, the need to care for those who do not make it is being addressed.  If that care had been provided by so many of the “Lambeth” jurisdictions in the last fifty years, TAC would never have existed (and yet the duty to seek unity with undoubted jurisdictions in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church would in no way have diminished).

The Ordinariates are about enabling Anglican patrimony to flourish within the Universal Church (while, as we daily see, it self-destructs outside it).  This is not achieved on the model of “takeover” or even “merger” — it is not about a business combination but about choice.  There is no merit in moving all the details of a Continuing jurisdiction into an Ordinariate.  We never wanted (if we had any understanding of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church we acknowledge) to be a separate jurisdiction; we merely wanted to continue the faith as we had received it.  If we were wise, we did not imagine that any of the innumerable versions of Anglicanism were or had ever been God's perfect work (I reluctantly disagree with George Herbert!), and if so we should always have been ready to learn where changes were needed — but by careful explanation rather than by imposition.  TAC was a proper emergency response; it has been a blessing from which much has been learnt; but neither TAC nor any form of Anglicanism in isolation from the Universal Church were God's permanent will.

In particular, the Ordinariates will enable us to walk away from the defensive constitutions into a greater stability, that of the Universal Church.  We do not build, we barely even preserve, the faith by producing such documents.  Neither Christ nor his Apostles gave us anything like a comprehensive rule book!

The consequences of choice include, as I have already indicated, dissenters.  The very impossibility and impropriety of the business combination model means that some institutions as well as some people will not be brought into the Ordinariate.  My private expectation is that in England some of the members of The Traditional Anglican Church (TTAC) will be left behind.  Unless other provision is agreed, they will retain the name, a complex and defensive constitution, and associated legal entities which are far too big for them.  They will presumably be left with a small bank balance (there are no other property issues).  They will be far too few to justify their own locally resident Bishop, so presumably a residual TAC, if there is one, will appoint a Vicar General for them.  Or perhaps there will be some wisdom in the alphabet soup and they will be encouraged to consider… a merger with another Continuing body!  (So it comes back to business combinations.)  Those current members of TTAC who join the Ordinariate have no need of any of the old apparatus.  Why should we struggle to keep it?  It is not patrimony, merely practical arrangements which were never ideal.

I do not of course know how it will be elsewhere.  In a larger body, such as exists in the United States, the dissenters would probably be numerous enough to need their own Bishop or Bishops, and other practical arrangements.  It is a human decency for those who are joining the Ordinariates to leave their former colleagues order rather than chaos.

I do not like talk of disloyalty.  It may be very difficult to justify, if the existing constitutions are to be crawled over as authoritative documents to establish who (if anybody) can change what (if anything).  For the inherent ambiguity in the Traditional Anglican Communion was that the constitution required the Bishops to seek unity, and not least with Rome, as they have done; and yet defensively worded constitutions make any practical steps difficult unless it is possible simply to walk away from them, as it is in England.

I suppose if anybody who signed the original petition of the TAC Bishops were now to denounce his signature and actively campaign against the Ordinariates, this would be inconsistent conduct.  I am not aware this has happened.  Even then, it might be argued that one signed in honest hope of something rather different from what is now offered.  This would not excuse affirming the Catechism then and now rejecting it, since it has not changed in the mean time and it was not a new and unfamiliar document when originally affirmed.  Again, I am not aware this has happened.

A vocation to gather the fragments which will remain after the Ordinariates is not despicable — it is the original Continuing vocation and we should not lightly assume sordid motives.  I would be happier if there were no fragments; but choice means the possibility of dissent.  It is right that Anglicanorum coetibus insists on choice and Archbishop Hepworth was right to insist that provision must be made for those who dissent from that choice.  And if so, a beginning has to be made — probably even before there are Ordinariates to which to apply.