The following statement was the product of this afternoon's session of the Anglican Church in America's House of Bishops which is currently meeting at The National Shrine of Our Lady of the Snows in Belleville, Illinois.
* * *
A Unanimous Statement by the ACA House of Bishops after a full morning together of questions and answers with regard to everyone's true intention.
Some of us are prepared to seek entry into an American Ordinariate the moment it exists. Some are not yet ready at this time. None has decided never to seek entry. Those not ready to do so at this time are determined to remain within the TAC/ACA and continue their ministry until the time a final decision can be made.
The House of Bishops of the ACA has not taken any steps in the direction of any other form or plan of union, but will follow scrupulously the process required by the Canons of the ACA and the Concordat of the TAC in that regard.
Related posts:
This is remarkable, and most welcome. I need to go back now and re-read the bishops' previous letters. I must have misunderstood them.
Yes, me also ??????
Father Phillips,
I went back and re-read both Bishop William's and Bishop Strawn's letters. They did not leave room for misunderstanding. Both talked of seeking intercommunion with the APA — a Continuing Body that has firmly rejected the offer of the Holy Father. Go to the APA website and read it under the Archbishop's section.
Both talked about unity with the Continuum — that the priority is to repair the broken unity within Anglicanism, specifically the Continuum. Unity within the Continuum is like trying to herd cats!
Archbishop Hepworth's letter will only cause them to quietly seek their aims. I believe they underestimated the Archbishop and the backlash of their letters. Sadly, I do not trust these three Bishops. I have seen nothing to trust in their actions to date. Just more Anglican fudge. Do I want to be correct in this assertion? No. I do not. I want them to prove me wrong. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. These Bishops need to produce better fruit now and in the future.
I've always known there is power in the cross, just hadn't considered it in terms of the Southern Cross.
Better that, than the double-cross.
The letter from Bp Strawn was clear that he had no intention to become Catholic, yet he wanted to stay in the ACA anyway. A way must be found to prevent these three bishops from dividing the ACA. If they don't want to enter the ordinariate, they should be deposed from office. See if anyone wants to follow them into the APA.
That whole things is sad and embarrassing. Those Bishops ought to step down. The whole of the TAC/ACA was and has been for some time clearly headed in a certain direction (Rome). Now, when a most remarkable offer has been made, and it is time to pastorally follow through…we have what for all intents and purposes looks like self interest taking over. Shame.
My understanding is that ALL of the Bishops agreed to what was in the Catechism. Had they never read it or just felt "Oh whatever for now". From the outside it looks like integrity was thrown aside in order to continue to wear purple rather than priestly black. Do some of them now not want to become simple priests in the Catholic Church.
I am rather disgusted and I am not even someone at this point planning to go to Rome.
I have to admit I obviously do not know all of the facts of the situation. I would think that these Bishops ought to come forward and be honest about what is going on. How can parishioners follow these Bishops even if the parishioners have decided not to go to Rome?
The one I have some admiration for at this point is ++Hepworth. As I understand his situation, he will not be able to become a priest in the Ordinariate and yet knowing he is working himself out of a job he continues to shepherd his flock in the direction God is leading him. That seems to be integrity.
Maybe it is my natural cynicism about bishops in general, but I have a very different take on this. Everyone seems to think that there's some principle involved, one way or another. I find the analysis of +Strawn's letter, and the like from +Williams, posted on TheContinuum blogsite disingenuous, to say the least.
The reality is that the bishops in question have learned that their parishes and people, for whatever reason, will not follow them in the Roman Option. So, they have a choice to make: move on toward Rome all by themselves or with what people will follow OR stay where they are, as bishops of their several dioceses
In short, this is a 'rice bowl' issue. If they go into the Ordinariate, they lose a lot. If they stay out, they remain bishops of their several dioceses. It's as simple as that, really. They signed onto implementation; now they crawfish. People have to think of many bishops as politicians, It has ever been so. There's a tale from the 19th c about Dr Pusey. Someone came to him, crying that they had leaned on their bishops, only to have them give way, fail them. But Pusey had leaned on the Word of God, which would never fail him.
Tolle lege, fratres, tolle lege. Lean on that and it will never fail you Men will fail us. Institutions will fail us. The Word of God, written to testify of The Word Incarnate. living and true, will never fail us.
Heaven guide and protect us all.
In +,
Benton
I was not aware of the decision from the APA which firmly rejected the Ordinariate. The only statement I knew of was the first one they issued, which was cautiously optimistic and receptive.
Also, I remember when the APA was working towards unity with the REC, and many in the REC were upset because the APA was "too catholic". Guess sometimes you can't please anybody.
APA and REC relations, back in 2008 a Diocese under Bishop Boyce left the APA for the REC. APA delcined joining ACNA and Bishop Boyce joined REC with about 22 parishes.
Yes, some in the REC were unhappy…their chant was something like "no way APA".
Per the Archbishops letter, the APA still has theological issues with Papal Authority, Marian teachings, and validity of Anglican Orders. While they said they eagerly await the AC, no public response since. Unless I missed something. The last written word of the archbishop on this issue was "Apostolicae Curae will require further intensive and deliberate dialogue". Maybe after the Ordinariate is up and running, some APA parishes will join.
I thought Primate Hepworth and the ACA Bishops stated they would continue to provide pastoral care for those who wanted to go and those who do not? Why did someone above say they should "depose" of those Bishops? Has really come to that? Please correct if I am misunderstanding, but if some clergy and laymen choose to stay in the ACA what is the issue?
It would be greatly appreciated if someone who has been part of TAC/ACA from the beginning would explain to me who actually established the Anglican Traditional Communion.
What were the goals of TAC from the very beginning and did those goals change at some point in time.
Who chose Archbishop Hepworth as Primate.
If as some Anglicans within TAC are saying the goal was just intercommunion with Rome and not actually becoming Catholic when was this documented.
If in fact the goal was just intercommunion and this changed why was there not a split in TAC/ACA between the two opposing groups.
When you read Anglicans against the Ordinariate they are blaming ++Hepworth for being dishonest. They are also blaming Christian Campbell and his Bishop for entering the Ordinariate in one breath and saying those going towards the Ordinariate should just leave, which contradicts their views of blaming Christian and his Bishop for doing as they have suggested.
My thoughts and the reason for these questions are, if in fact any of the above is true, why in the world would those opposing Bishops and priests not come forward, at least when Pope Benedict made his offer of the Apostolic Constitution, and and remove themselves from TAC/ACA. Splitting from one group to another is very typical of the Continuing Anglican groups, this causes me to question why would an honest person stay within a group which they don't agree with. There is much finger pointing going on and the ones against the Ordinariate are saying, well those wanting to join the Ordinariate should just leave, I assume meaning they are the true TAC/ACA and those joining the Ordinariates are the traitors.
Since I was never involved with TAC/ACA I would really like to understand how such a group as TAC could be so divided and yet no one voiced their opinions, at least openly to the Primate and terminated their membership, but stayed on secretly fighting against the Ordinariate.
Also how do we end this continuous battle? One person stated that unless you followed the 39 Articles you were not really Anglican. As I recall the 39 Articles are protestant in nature, so at least in my opinion that makes you a protestant in theology if you subscribe to them. I was brought up Episcopalian and my parents always thought they were prostestant. Although I was also an Anglo Catholic at one time and believe that there were priests that had valid orders, but as of today the church I once knew no longer exists, either in TEC or the Continuing Anglican groups.
I am just trying to understand how TAC/ACA got to this point, from my perspective this is what happens when you don't have a central leader, i.e. the Pope and a faith that cannot be changed through the desires of men.
I am asking this in all charity and only want to understand how such a great desire for unity can end up so divided.
I'll let you all in on a little tidbit… Williams of DOW was never likely to go to Rome, mostly because when Rome found out that he is not only married but divorced and remarried to a divorcee, he would not only not be able to be a Bishop for Rome, he wouldn't even have qualified to be a priest. So for Williams to accept Angl. Coet. meant certain laicization. So while he pretended to to be "studying" the document, he was looking for an out from the start. He adores his mitre way too much for that. The fact that he has two other ACA bishops rejecting Angl. Coet. with him is just icing on the cake for him…. gives legitimacy to whatever his theological reasons for rejecting Angl. Coet. may be. If Hepworth really wanted to go to Rome from the start, he should never have allowed Williams to be a bishop in TAC. My two cents. fwiw.
The same is true of the "marital circumstances" of Strawn of DMV. So, once again, the question arises — why were these men's elections approved and themselves consecrated?
I would not argue with those who suggest that +Strawn's absolute disqualification for ordained ministry in RCC motivates his opposition to the Ordinariate. Not only does he lack the barest of any theological education he often struggles with forming a declaritive sentence.
HOWEVER in fairness to him it was told that the TAC efforts at intercommunion were the outgrowth of the splendid beginnings dating back to March 1966 when Lord Ramsey, 100th Archbishop of Canterbury and Paul VI said:
"Their desire that all those Christians who belong to these two Communions may be animated by these same sentiments of respect esteem and fraternal love, and in order to help these develop to the full, they intend to inaugurate between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion a serious dialogue which, founded on the gospels and on the ancient common traditions, may lead to that unity in truth, for which Christ prayed".
Put more simply the two great churches would walk together in love and respect. Benedict XVI's proposal, while in many ways generous, is like suggesting Jonah and the whale swam together; oh forget that the one was inside the other.
So +Strawn et al have their legitimate concerns about Ang. Coet.
HOWEVER that being said they should not try to publicly torpedo the work of their betters that is +Hepworth and +Falk. They instead should be speaking privately to these prelates concerning their issues. Mail-order priests make for poor bishops.