In the Gloom of the Emmanuel Centre
So today a visit to London, for the 'Sacred Synod' called by a number of those who call themselves catholic-minded bishops in the Church of England. The clergy turned out in great numbers — very impressive. I hope they were not all as disappointed as I was. It began well enough, with the two southern PEVs, Ebbsfleet and Richborough, telling us the present state of play, and how it was likely the Ordinariate would begin in England early in the New Year. The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, in particular, made it clear that as suffragans of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the PEVs could not proselytise for the Ordinariate. If, however, anyone wanted to contact them and ask what they should do, then of course they would help them. Then John, Bishop of Fulham, spoke in similar terms, telling us how his own family were pressing him to speed things up because they wanted a secure catholic home for their children and grandchildren.
Jonathan Baker (left, below) spelled out very clearly just where we were in the synodical process; and told us that for all the efforts of the Catholic Group, we had lost. Anyone who thought the situation could be redeemed was living in cloud-cuckoo land.
Then we began to hear from some of the cuckoos. Do they nest especially in Sussex? — for all of them seemed to have connections with Chichester, bishops and former archdeacons of that diocese almost to a man. The Bishop of Horsham (second from left, above, with the bishops of Fulham, Richborough and Ebbsfleet beyond him on the right) floated the notion of a "Society Model": I do not think he was talking about those high class hookers who, I am told, hang around Mayfair. No, this Society was to gather up all the Anglican Catholics who, for whatever reason, would not join the Ordinariate (at least not at once) and give them a fig leaf of respectablity.
The trouble is we have been round this buoy already. Fr David Houlding, Master General of SSC, had worked at the Synod's request on producing just such a model; and clause by clause it had been voted down in the Synod. So why does anyone think it has a chance now?
The Master General of SSC
It would need one of two things: either the support of the Synod (you must be joking!) or Anglican bishops of a catholic temper who were prepared to break the law. Now who could these be? The only ones with any guts will have left for the Ordinariate. Why do we suppose the others would change the habit of a lifetime and dare defy the House of Bishops or the General Synod? No, the whole idea of this "Society" is dead before it begins. Not so much a Society — more a Cuckoo Club.
Some who spoke pleaded with us not to be judgmental with one another. We must treat everyone as acting from honourable motives. Oddly, I was reading some of Newman's "Apologia" on the train to London. When he began to write the Tracts, many of his former friends turned against him. One of these liberals (that is what Newman calls them) produced a pamphlet saying that for instance Trinitarian Doctrine was simply a matter of opinion: Newman, on being sent a copy, wrote "you will forgive me, if I take the opportunity it affords of expressing to you my very sincere and deep regret that it has been published… I lament that by its appearance the first step has been taken towards interrupting that peace and mutual good understanding which has prevailed so long in this place" (he was speaking of Oxford). Earlier he wrote, "My feeling was something like that of a man, who is obliged in a court of justice to bear witness against a friend". When a northern dignitary wrote accusing him of "wishing to re-estabish the blood and torture of the Inquisition" he responded, "The heresiarch should meet with no mercy: he assumes the office of the Tempter; …to spare him is a false and dangerous pity. It is to endanger the souls of thousands, and it is uncharitable toward himself".
Of course there will be priests, and people, unable to join the Ordinariate from day one. It should not be a pleasant situation, for that would extend it interminably. It is no kindness to them to give them a comfort blanket, a little cosy club to make them feel "well, if Bishop X and Fr Y don't feel it necessary to go over, neither shall I".
We had Dame Mary Tanner, the doyenne of the ecumenical movement in England, saying "we are in a time of discernment". "The ordination of women, if it proves to be wrong, will be reversed". She must have been roosting too long with the cuckoos, too; IN THEORY, as we should know, the Church of England has said we are in a time of reception. But the Synod no longer believe this, or it would have made space for us. It is sure what it has done is right, and will go ahead to consecrate lady bishops over any number of our dead bodies. Poor Mary, I weep for her, I really do, she has borne the heat and burden, and it is all coming to nothing. No good her saying, "It is not for the Church of England to decide; it is not even for the Anglican Communion to decide: it is for the whole Church". But the overwhelming part of the Church, Eastern and Western, has spoken, and we in England and the USA have thumbed our nose and just ploughed on. She still pins her hopes on Son of ARCIC, and says how Benedict is supporting it. Really? What of lasting value has ARCIC ever achieved — just an expensive and time-wasting talking shop.
Wallace in the Lions' Den
Then the Bishop of Lewes, Wallace Benn, a leader among Conservative Evangelicals, asked us to bury the hatchet (leave yesterday's battles at least until the day after tomorrow) and join forces with his supporters in the Society (of St Luther and St Calvin?).
It was sad, too, to see Fr Houlding trying to defend something — another attempt at the Society Model — when he knows in his heart it will fail. He has been there, done that, has it branded on him, not just printed on a T-shirt. It did not work then, and it will not be allowed to work.
They have chosen the title of "The Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda" for their brave new invention. How odd. Wilfred was the firebrand who determined to bring the old-style Northern British into line; and with the support of Abbess Hilda he succeeded. Perhaps that is the secret message which the Bishop of Beverley and his colleagues wish us to hear and to follow; for sooner or later, they will have to follow it themselves, or lose whatever credibility they still possess.
It was a very strange and expensive day. A priest friend summed it up in an email he sent me on his return home. "Like you, … I was rather irritated that what was billed as a "Synod" proved, in part, to be launching pad from what seems to me to be an ill-devised scheme for a Society model with little hope of success — it can't possibly secure jurisdiction, and I doubt that any episcopal leadership in it will dare to be illegal. People, as ever, just seem to be ever drawing lines in the sand and redefining the non-negotiables. But I'll endeavour to persuade the PCC that it was worth the £53.40 round trip." Hope he succeeds. For me, it was in the end worth it because so many younger priests were coming up to me and expressing similar exasperation with the cuckoo tendency, and saying they were more determined than ever to join the Ordinariate.
Related posts:
"Fr David Houlding, Master General of SSC, had worked at the Synod's request on producing just such a [Society] model; and clause by clause it had been voted down in the Synod."
That wasn't how I understood Fr Houlding – rather, it had been rejected by the Revision Committee and had never got as far as General Synod. Which is why it is still regarded as a "live" option, since it has never been considered, much less rejected, by Synod. (Of course, no-one believes that it would have stood a snowball's chance in hell had it been presented to that august body, but at least those initiating this Society can't be accused of trying to reintroduce something which has already been killed off.)
(A minor correction: these facts were related, I think, not by Fr Houlding but by Fr Jonathan Baker.)
People should send GOBS of money to The Anglo-Catholic — Bishop Barnes alone is worth the price of admission! Thanks, Bishop, for your straight talk.
As an aside… weren't St. Wilfred and St. Hilda both in communion (gasp) with the Pope at that time?
The pope at the time of St Wilfrid and St Hilda did not require Catholic priests to be celibate, and did not require Catholics to believe in certain dogmas imposed more than a thousand years later.
At that time he was also in communion with the Orthodox churches from which his successor managed to separate in 1054.
In fact his successors have signally failed to keep the church together. Not an encouraging sign for those being invited to leave one fragment of the church for another.
Mervyn,
Thank you for putting this into its proper context.
If those considering communion with Rome believe they are leaving "one fragment of the church for another", then they have a seriously defective ecclesiology (one that would not be recognized by Catholics or Orthodox now or in the days of St Wilfrid and St Hilda) and ought to remain as they are now: protestants.
What's up with the purple socks?
He's dressed episcopally.
I hope the other Bishops there were similarly-attired. The catholic ones, at any rate).
We really should get +Carl some purple socks. I'm sure his wife would get a kick out of them.
Why Deborah, that reads like something I would write. Better be careful!
"Doc"+
They look like Ordinary socks to me . . .
Please, I mean no cruelness, but "The Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda"?! – it sounds like a half-nostalgic, half-satirical mockery of long-departed dead Anglo-Catholicism, the sort to be found in a Betjeman poem: in fact, I know which one:
Felixstowe, or The Last of Her Order [3rd stanza only:]
In eighteen ninety-four when we were founded,
Counting our Reverend Mother we were six,
How full of hope we were and prayer-surrounded
"The Little Sisters of the Hanging Pyx".
We built our orphanage. We built our school.
Now only I am left to keep the rule.
History repeats itself, firstly as tragedy, then as farce (as Marx said of Napoleons I and III).
Those remaining in the C. of E. will be doomed to fade and fail as the Nonjurors, alas – the pastoral quoted a few posts ago said as much.
Is this Society to run nursing homes only, until the last one turns off the light?
That poem is applicable to religious communities of both churches in England.
With apologies to the Royal Navy
I don’t want to be a Roman.
I won’t ever go to Rome.
I just want to ‘ang around,
The Canterbury middle ground,
Livin’ off the e’rnins of an eye class AffCath.
No an I don’t want no chessy Chatechism
I wont let the truth stand in me wayyyy.
I want to stay an Anglo,
A wishy washy Anglo,
An obfuscate me earthly life awayyyy.
This will require a lot of courage and hardship for many "Anglo-Catholics" seeking to follow their consciences and re-commune with Rome.
Know that many on the Roman side of the Tiber are praying for you all.
God's blessings in this difficult but potentially very rewarding time.
Bishop Benn is a firm Irish Protestant. He is one of the few Church of England bishops who has never worn a mitre. He is a trustee of Reform ( the Evangelical equivalent of Forward in Faith ) and this grouping supports lay celebration , female deacons and repudiates the intercession of Saints, prayers to the dead and the sacrifice of the Mass.
Yes , St Wilfrid and St Hilda were firm " Romanists." At the Synod of Whitby , St Wilfrid helped reconcile the Celtic Christians to Rome. The latter resented the Mission of St Augustine , which had evangelised the Anglo-Saxon invaders. You see, the Welsh are the original British and the English descend from Germanic immigrants! The Celtic Christians always acknowledged Rome, but were unhappy with the Augustinian mision. It was essentially a racial dsispute. By the way the word Welsh is an Anglo Saxon derived word meaning foreigner. A Welshman is in fact a Cymro.
Mr Gould's comments lack the charity he seeks for the CofE. May I suggest such unkindness be moderated if not now then in future?
Judgement aside, is this sort of post the work of the Holy Spirit?
Anon,
If you so choose please contact me at saint_bernadette@yahoo.com, I think we have a post in common.
Anon,
I just noticed that in my e-mail address it doesn't show that there is a _ between saint_bernadette, just in case you have tried to contact me.
I was there and was extremely disappointed. It seemed to me like a pointless restating of the blatantly obvious, ah well.
If anything at all it was a useful show of strength, but little else. I left early but the one question for me that wasn't answered was whether the ordinariate offers any hope for people like me leading churches that won't come with me.
Pax
Indeed it does; you need to be in touch with one of the active (ie not retired) Southern PEVs to be told how… God bless. +E
I too share +Edwin's comments about yesterday's meeting – actually I got a good bargin, £46.50 return from Cornwall! Which included sharing in a stag party on the train with a bunch lads going to Truro for the week end – this morning, I don't that was altogether wise, but at least they thought I was a "cool Vicar"!
I know the organisers of yesterday did what they did with the best of intentions, but like the stag party on the 18:03 Paddington to Penzance service (running 12 minutes late), I don't think it was altogether wise. I do feel for those who cannot at the moment move for personal reasons, some of them are my friends who are finding life very difficult and stressful at the moment. However, the game is over, the end of the "blind alley" is in sight, the buffers at Penzance loom! Let's stop clutching at straws, RITA reigns Alleluia!
As Pooh explained, "It all comes from loving honey too much". It's easy to be critical in one's retirement & @ one's leisure, ain't it?
Indeed, and with a nice fat CofE pension in his pocket too. Anglo-Papalists like the good bishop enjoyed all the benefits of years of 'playing Roman' in the CofE and only now, nicely comfortable, do they finally make the move – and then have the temerity to criticise those who don't wish, and have never wished to, swallow Roman dogma.
Anglican,
How very rude and churlish you are. The pension is just the same as in any other walk of life… it is part of the agreed terms of service. Anglican clergy can hardly be accused of being overpaid, and your pension accrues with length of service as it does in other professions.
Anglican pensions are not fat either. I look forward 20 years to the day when the C of E starts to pay me my pension: 5 and a half 37ths of 2/3 of the minimum stipend — my pension provision for the 5 and a half years service… and before you bust a gut, I received not one penny of compensation under the Measure because it was framed in such a way that the relatively newly ordained got nothing… this also meant that the true number of clergy who left after '92 is greatly underestimated, because the figure given is those who left under the Measure — very many younger clergy left, plus those who left on the 'sick' and the many who took an earlier retirement than they would have otherwise have done.
Worcester Fragment, Thanks for your support. Didn't you love the bit in Fr LR's response concerning "ease and leisure". I am just back at 9pm on Sunday from a 400 mile round trip by road to help a priest celebrate a 50th anniversary yesterday, and then confirm a candidate in far-flung Essex today. We set off at 7am yesterday. Ask my wife about our 'leisure' – it will make her laugh.
The establishment of SSWSH should be perhaps seen in the context of an interview, given by Bp. Urwin, one of its supporters, in July on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalkingToWalsingham#p/u/4/J33nHFBaZMk
(note that a very loud plane flies overhead 2.20 minutes into the interview, so turn down the volume at that point!)
Bp. Urwin speaks about the issue of AC survival and of his fears of traditionalist Anglo-Catholics having a "grugingly accepted" existence in the CoE. My fear is that we will witness a continual replay of the heated words exchanged between the Bishop of Beverley and a certain lay member at synod in July.
Let me echo MikeM's prayer of God's blessings for those discerning the Ordinariate.
I have linked part one of the interview above. The plane actually flies overhead 2.20 minutes into part two (the most interesting part of the interview) here: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalkingToWalsingham#p/u/5/vBFIMfo7dN8
I too attended the Sacred Synod which was supposed to be a "consultation". I didn't notice much "consultation". The day, in my opinion, was a waste of time although I enjoyed listening to the Bishops of Richborough and Ebbsfleet. I really don't see a lot of point to the new Society of St. Wilfrid and St. Hilda, which was announced as a sort of "look what we've done – aren't we clever" thing. If it is to become a preparation for the Ordinariate it may have some justification but, please, do we really need another Catholic Society and what about SSC/FinF, et al. couldn't they have fulfilled a similar function. But if it is just to give certain Bishops a means of justification for not taking up the Pope's offer but appear to be doing something (anything?) then it is a very likely to fade into total insignificance and, just a thought, if it really had or actually ever achieved any real power, do they think for one moment that it would be allowed to continue within the Cof E. I think Bishop Edwin had it just about right – cloud cuckoo land!
This new society reminds me of the old Evangelical and Catholic Mission in the United States after 1976 General Convention left Catholics without any protection whatsoever. "We're not threatening to leave, we're threatening to stay!" Robert Terwilliger said! Well, look at what they accomplished – Terwilliger's dead, others decamped for other pastures, including the Catholic Church for a few, and the rest capitulated to the new order, including bishops and prominent people like Canon Rosenthall, who used to be on the board of ECM, IIRC!
I had nearly the same thought, except that rather than the ECM it was the early days of the Episcopal Synod of America that came to mind. In any event, the outcome is the same — as it will be for Swish.
I remember being told that there was going to be an ESA meeting in Valley Forge where they were going to present “the plan” and we were sorely disappointed to find out there was no plan or, more accurately, there were about 20 different plans. That's when our parish realized we needed to come up with our own plan. After 17+ years of being Orthodox, I can't imagine what it must be like to still be in the mode of “I swear, if they change just one more thing…”
This is from my blog http://www.allgassandgaiters.blogspot.com Having received a comment on my last post, I have replied that I think the new proposed 'Society'(it has no saintly patronage as far as I can see) is like choosing a path going up a cul-de-sac (dead end) and seeing the sign before you even enter the road. It has got me thinking. As you can see, I wasn't impressed with this unpublished idea which was dropped on us all when we got to London (all the way from Wales in my case). How many 'Catholic' Societies are there already! The last thing we need is to invent one more now as some ships prepare to go out of port to a brighter destination. This new one will flounder on the rocks because she is certainly not sea-worthy, let alone got a navigator and a Captain with jurisdiction on board! I felt I was being press-ganged; no way! Seriously, I think we should be told whose idea this is and who has promoted it, as it appears to have some backing from Forward in Faith which is a great shame on them (us). WHOSE IDEA IS THIS? From where did it originate? It seems like the worst prepared proposal from a bad and very late PCC meeting which got through because everyone wanted to get home!What a wonderful job this may do of undermining the Ordinariate (I hope not). You don't think this idea could have been fed from the Establishment to 'go on give it a go, we might let you have a bit of a place tee-hee' do you? Yes, I am being cynical and I seriously question the leadership on this. I thought we were trying to support each other on the voyages that will be different for everyone and in the parting of ways, not holing people below the waterline before they've even got going on their respective journeys.Mark.
"WHOSE IDEA IS THIS?"
The names of the Bishops who called the Synod are printed on the letter of invitation sent on 21 June. They were sitting on the platform, and they spoke at the meeting.
The letter was not headed "Ordinariate Rally" but "Sacred Synod" and it invited people to hear a variety of views, not just yours.
"How many 'Catholic' Societies are there already! The last thing we need is to invent one more …"
With respect, I don't think you (or Fr Tomlinson, who said much the same thing at the very end of the Synod) can have been paying attention. Fr Houlding spoke about the variety of levels of meaning which the term "Society" can signify, and made clear that a Religious Society such as is intended has a "high" level of ecclesial existence – we're not talking here of "societies" in the sense of ACS, SMF etc. – which can potentially have the functional attributes of a diocese: including, as was made clear, jurisdiction. No such body has previously existed in the C of E (SSC approximates in some regards, but is for priests and bishops only, and has never sought jurisdictional autonomy).
I like that one of Swish's goals is "ecumenical dialogue directed towards the goal of full visible communion with the rest of the Church catholic, both Eastern and Western". It's both sufficiently vague ("ecumenical dialogue…") and sufficiently remote ("full visible communion with the rest of the Church catholic, both Eastern and Western") that it's essentially meaningless. What they will actually create is a small bubble for Anglo-Catholics who talk the talk but prefer not to walk the walk.
I am aware that there is a sense of coming full-circle with the announcement of the new society, but it seems we have reached the unhappy, although inevitable, stage where some anglo-catholics in CoE will join the Ordinariate and others, for the present, will not. Whether those remaining start a new society, or retain the existing FiF/SSC structure, is ultimately beside the point. The aims of those remaining are still the same, in particular, to achieve a more acceptable arrangement than a code of practice.
Even though the prospect of 'going our separate ways' is a challenge, it does provide an opportunity for all of us to follow in the example of the Holy Father's initial generous gesture. As Catholic Christians we are called to reach out to those who are distinguishable from us and through the fruits of the charitable words and actions between the (i) Ordinariate CoE members (ii) Society CoE members (iii) Latin Catholics and (iv) Other Ordinariate members e.g. TAC, will we be known as following in the footsteps of Jesus and echoing the goodwill which Anglicanorum Coetibus encapsulates.
So I take this to be Anglicanism's version of SSPX?
I think it would have been MUCH wiser to have launched a loose network of support those not yet ready to enter the Ordinariate for whatever reason. It could have been built with firm links to the Ordinariate path and might even have linked to it.
What is galling about this is that it is an illegal and highly risky venture that, if it does not fail, will eventually become another weird continuing sect or else what??
Anglicanism is no longer Catholic and reformed it is now clearly CLEARLY liberal and protestant. So why pretend there is a viable Catholic future in it?
People are getting angry at my criticism but what of the parishioners? Is it fair that clergy use their personal reasons for turning their backs on the Pope to ensure the sheep in their care never enter the promised land? And let us be honest and admit that much of the resistance is due to personal reasons and not theological convictions….
Since I am not invovled in TAC/ACA in any way, I know nothing about what the goal of TAC was.
Can someone with knowledge explain how long TAC has been established and how long ago did it approach Rome asking to be united. Were there not discussions between all the Bishops, clergy and laity involved over this time frame of what exactly were the beliefs and theology and the destination of the Traditional Anglican Communion?
It is quite confusing to me that if so many Bishops were opposed to Rome, why would they not split from TAC or if the minority were the ones intending to become part of an Ordinariate did not leave. There seems to be opposing views from the two sides and this must have been well known by many involved.
If one group wanted no part of becoming Catholic, why has this not been clarified a long time ago. I am just curious as it is very difficult to understand this whole terrible mess and especially at the very last moment.
Of course it is best that those who choose to stay Anglicans in one of the groups, to do so before anyone joined the Ordinariate and then left it, taking others with them. It would be an embarrassment to all involved.
I think many in TAC never imagined that it would receive a yes answer to its petition to the Holy See, thus permitting them to savor the sweetness of being associated with high minded, pious intentions and aspirations without having to undertake the institutional and personal house cleaning demanded by those very intentions and aspirations. In other words, some never imagined that they could not, in perpetuity, continue to feast on their protestant cake with all its delicious catholic icing – for some,of course, purple icing ( a color they they seem unable to do without.)
I think Father Berry is right on!
"another weird continuing sect"… well, Father, those of us familiar with the fragmentation of the Continuum, might just be suspicious that those who join an Ordinariate (for which there is no precedent or model) will find themselves in just another Continuing Church, playing at being Roman Catholics, in a safe cocoon of their own devising.
If you sincerely believe that the Church of England, including your Catholic colleagues, is not a Church and that the priestly orders which you exercise are in fact an illusion – these are the officially expressed views of the Roman Catholic Church – then you ought not to delay any longer in seeking admission to RCIA and Confirmation, let alone a valid Mass.
I suspect however that you are belatedly coming for the first time to recognise that Anglican Catholicism never has been the Ultramontane tradition which you have been playing out in your parish, and that it does have a distinctive theology and ecclesiology which you have never shared.
No one wishes you anything other than blessing and fulfilment in the path which you have chosen: those who do not share your excitement would appreciate the courtesy of coming to their own conclusions, rather than being daily berated as fools, "protestants" or now, false shepherds.
It is indeed deeply wearying to see some Ordinariate enthusiasts losing no opportunity to impugn the motives or the intelligence of those who do not see things as they do. (Do they realise, I wonder, just how unattractive they thereby make their preferred course in the sight of undecided others?)
This does, however, cut both ways. For example, attacking those who have decided that they are Ordinariate-bound, simply on the grounds that they are retired and should therefore presumably shut up, is equally inappropriate. Neither making unwarranted assumptions about other people's motives (Fr Tomlinson please note) nor seeking to disqualify the opinions of others based on their life situation (Anglican ditto) is going to do anything to convince those who do not already share one's own convictions.
Forgive the typo – sorry, Mervyn… +E
Marvyn, there is no chance that the Ordinariate will become a 'safe cocoon' for 'playing at being Roman Catholics'; it will be an integral part of the Catholic Church, overseen by the Holy Father and those whom he appoints. In replying as you do to Fr Ed you say he "should not delay any longer in seeking admissdion to RCIA &c"; the reason some of us are waiting is that we are trying to respond to the Holy Father's offer AS A BODY; for Anglicanorum Coetibus was not an offer to individuals, but one made to GROUPS of Anglicans. Sorry if you think we are being dilatory – the timetable is that of the Catholic Church and CDF, not yours or mine.
Thank you, though, for your wishes of blessing and fulfilment; which I certainly would wish you also. +E
A challenge has been issued by Damian Thompson to those Anglo Catholics who feel, for whatever reason, unable to join the Ordinariate……. will they now take down their pictures of the Holy Father and stop using the Roman Rite? Well will they?
I think that, with the offer of the Ordinariate, one has either to shit on the pot or get off it. Another Catholic Society? Pointless. There are too many already, with nuanced differences. Division into yet smaller groups loses ACs yet more clout: little groups all doing their own thing. Forward in Faith, for one, has size, clout, authority. Its replacement by this Society(it IS its effective replacement) – necessarily much smaller, less resourced and less 'legitimate' (the 'proper Catholics left for the Ord') – will achieve nothing except, perhaps, a modicum of emollience.
Swish
LOL. SSWSH. Why didn't I see that earlier?
We all should show charity towards those who oppose the others decision, but the comments I have seen on this website don't compare to the scandalous accusations against Bishops by name on one particular Anglican website.
Without facts the remarks were as bad as on the Inquiry or Globe scandal papers people buy. Now someone has proven the untruth of these horrible remarks and the priest who is the moderator made no real attempt to apologize.
Everyone is heated at the moment and emotions are running high, but the Anglican website has been making remarks and defaming wonderful clergy for many months.
I say let us all part and go our own way. Only the Holy Spirit can touch a persons' heart and soul, remarks made on either side will not convince anyone who has already made up their mind as to what road they are taking.
In one of the posts reprimanding a priest going into the Ordinariate, the poster's remarks are no better than the ones he is speaking of.
Calling a society weird is nothing compared to bemirching a Bishop or priest moral character.
Since the posters here now know where others stand, let us just get back to discussing issues that will affect those of us who are entering the Ordinariate. We should be joyful that our prayers are being answered and unless an Anglican is still questioning where his journey will be taking him, those who don't want any part of the Ordinariates have nothing positive to add to the website.
Anglicans who are still involved in where their leadership is going and haven't decided yet, of course, need to be well informed and many of the articles on the Anglo Catholic will be useful for them.
I guess my final point is the Anglo Catholic is not a debate board, but is here to lift up those who are coming into the Ordinariate.