The following letter was recently sent to the clergy of the Anglican Church in America's Diocese of the West by its Bishop Ordinary, Daren Williams. The three "continuing" bishops to which the letter alludes are:
- Daren Williams, Diocese of the West
- Stephen Strawn, Diocese of the Missouri Valley
- Brian Marsh, Diocese of the Northeast
The Anglo-Catholic will have in-depth commentary at some point in the very near future, but for the moment, the bishops' betrayal will be allowed to stand on its own.
* * *
Diocese of The West
Anglican Church in America
Office of the Bishop
The Right Reverend Daren K. Williams
Brothers in Christ,
The past three years have been challenging for us, especially regarding communion with the Roman Catholic Church. After a long waiting period following the TAC Petition to Rome (October 2007), we received their response in the form of the Apostolic Constitution (Anglicanorum Coetibus) in November 2009. Living in this long waiting and discerning period has been anything but comfortable for any of us, especially those of us called to ordained ministry. Our July 1st Extraordinary Synod was helpful, I believe, as we shared our thoughts and prayers with one another. The Synod revealed that a few have expressed an eager desire to move toward an Ordinariate. A few others have declared they are not interested in the option. It appears to me that the Diocese of the West as a whole is a long way from accepting this offer from the Roman Church.
At this time I declare to you, the clergy of the diocese, my position and perspective. I am not led to request application to enter the Ordinariate. My priorities in ministry must include the care of the people of this jurisdiction, whether or not they desire to enter an Ordinariate. We have spent so much time and energy dealing with this issue, that we are losing our focus. This has caused serious distractions to our work to build up the Kingdom of God in this place. We have lost three parishes in this "waiting period" and the issue has caused stress for all of us — clergy and laity alike. Anglicans in the ACA are comparatively small in number and we often struggle to make ends meet. To move forward from this situation will require new focus as the entire diocese accepts greater responsibility for our common life. This will include greater commitment to Our Lord in all the aspects of stewardship through ministry and mission. And we need to begin now!
It is apparent to at least four members of the ACA House of Bishops that we are a divided house. Some are eager to enter an Ordinariate and others are not, for a variety of reasons. The results of the Synods in the Diocese of the West and the Diocese of the Missouri Valley, tell us the majority of our people will choose not to enter an Ordinariate; at least not at this time. It appears that the Synod of the Diocese of the Northeast will follow the same pattern when it meets later in September. Reports from the Diocese of the Eastern United States tell us that the attitude toward an Ordinariate is mixed. It is my conclusion that before we can enter into significant communal relationships with larger bodies of Catholic Christendom, we need to make another effort to unite with those near to us who share the same goals in Anglicanism.
Before I attend the House of Bishops meeting September 28-29, I am sharing with you now some action which will be taken. The bishops (this bishop included) intend to propose a document regarding intercommunion with the Anglican Province of America (APA) with the hope that the House of Bishops will support it. The APA includes people who were once part of us and were separated some twenty years ago. I believe that this separation should never have occurred, for it contradicts the Christian mission and hope. Dialogue is going on at the moment to do what we can to bering this intercommunion to reality by the First Sunday in Advent of this year, with the hope of reunification in the future. This action is not an attempt to undermine the work of unity as proposed by the College of Bishops of the TAC. It is to support those who intend to enter an Ordinariate and to support those who wish to remain in the Continuum, broken as it, is, with appropriate episcopal oversight.
All this may seem surprising, or even unsettling to some or many of you. It is not my intention to upset you or criticize decisions each of you have made or may make. This is intended to provide opportunities in ministry for all of us, that we may continue to love one another as brothers, whether or not we agree. My office and my heart are open to you at this time, with my promise to be faithful to God and His Church. I covet your prayers and please know that you are each in mine.
Your grateful Bishop,
+Daren K. Williams
* * *
You may download a scanned copy of the original letter here.
* * *
UPDATE 6:30 PM EDT 09/21/10:
A revised copy of the above letter is now being circulated by the Diocese of the West. Of note is the word "merger" with respect to the proposed intercommunion accord with the APA. A close inspection will reveal several corrections in the text, some incidental or editorial in nature, others indicating the advancement of the traitor bishops' scheme in the intervening days between revisions.
* * *
Brothers in Christ,
The past three years have been challenging for us, especially regarding communion with the Roman Catholic Church. After a long waiting period following the TAC Petition to Rome (October 2007), we received their response in the form of the Apostolic Constitution (Anglicanorum Coetibus) in November 2009. Living in this long waiting and discerning period has been anything but comfortable for any of us, especially those of us called to ordained ministry. Our July 1st Extraordinary Synod was helpful, I believe, as we shared our thoughts and prayers with one another. As the Synod revealed, few have expressed an eager desire to move toward an Ordinariate. A few others have declared they are not interested in the option. It appears to me that the Diocese of the West as a whole is a long way from accepting this offer from the Roman Church.
I believe it is necessary at this time to declare to you, the clergy of the diocese, my position and perspective. I do not believe I am led to request application to enter the Ordinariate at this time. I believe my call as a child of God is to be faithful to Him no matter what. My call as a priest and bishop is to be faithful to the responsibilities of the office of bishop. This means for me to teach and preach the Gospel as this Church has received it, to work and pray daily for the growth of God’s Kingdom on earth, and to be available to you as pastor and friend. I believe our focus as deacons, priests, and bishops must acknowledge that this is GOD’S Church, not ours. It is HE whom we must serve. It is God and His Church that must take first priority in our lives. I believe that seeking Christian unity is also a part of our responsibility. To support the concept of the Ordinariate is appropriate and honorable. However, my priorities in ministry must include the care of the people of my jurisdiction. My experience these past few years indicates we have spent so much time and energy dealing with this issue, that we are losing our focus. This has caused serious distractions to our work to build up the Kingdom of God in this place. We have lost three parishes in this “waiting period” and the issue has caused undue stress for all of us — clergy and laity alike. Anglicans in the ACA are comparatively small in number and we often struggle to make ends meet. To move from this condition will require new focus as the entire diocese accepts greater responsibility for our common life. This will include greater commitment to Our Lord in all the aspects of stewardship through ministry and mission. And we need to begin this now!
It is apparent to at least three members of ACA House of Bishops that we are a divided house. Some are eager to enter an Ordinariate and others are not, for a variety of reasons. As the results of Synods in the Diocese of the West and the Diocese of the Missouri Valley, the majority of our people will chose not to enter an Ordinariate. It appears the Synod of the Diocese of the Northeast will follow the same pattern when it meets next month. Reports from the Diocese of the Eastern United States tell us that the attitude toward an Ordinariate is mixed. It is my conclusion that before we can enter into a communal relationship with larger bodies of Catholic Christendom, we need to make another effort to unite with those near to us who share the same goals in Anglicanism.
We intend to propose a document to the House of Bishops at our meeting September 28-29 for intercommunion with the Anglican Province of America. These people were once a part of us and were separated some twenty years ago as a result of conflict, which contradicts the Christian mission and hope. Dialogue is going on at the moment to do what we can to bring this intercommunion to reality with the hope of eventual merger in the not too distant future.
This action is not an attempt to undermine the work of unity as proposed by the College of Bishops of the TAC, but rather, to support those who intend to enter an Ordinariate and to do so with our blessing. It will also will support those who wish to continue in the Continuum, broken as it is, with the blessing and support of their bishops. All this may seem surprising, or even upsetting to some or many of you. It is not my intention to upset or criticize decisions each of you have made or may make. This is intended to provide opportunities in ministry for all of us as we continue to love one another as brothers, whether or not we agree.
My call is to serve God and His Church. I was elected and seated as the Bishop of the Diocese of the West. I cherish that privilege and will endeavor to continue to live my life with integrity and humility. My office and my heart are open to you at this time, with my promise to be faithful to God and His Church. I covet your prayers and please know that you are each in mine.
Your grateful Bishop,
+Daren K. Williams
Related posts:
Shameful.
Definitely praying for all the bishops and members of the ACA, especially the faithful writers of this blog.
Thank you for this, Christian. And I'm sorry for this turn of events.
I am shocked and dismayed. This is so sad on so many levels.
As a faithful Roman Catholic follower of this fine blog I am lost on what this means. It does not, however, seem helpful to the grand plan of the Ordinariate.
I am not shocked at all. Disappointed perhaps, but not shocked. Any reasonable person could see that many many within the TAC who have spoken about full communion with the Catholic Church were merely engaged in idle talk. It is really much better that people who are not committed to the fullness of the Catholic Faith stay where they are. Surely none of us wishes to see the examples of Clarence Pope and Daniel Herzog repeated.
But words like "betrayal" and "traitor" should not be used. One might criticize Daren Williams for his lack of forthrightness in the past. But one shouldn't criticize him now that he is (finally) being honest (with himself as well as with others).
I agree with Noel. Such language as "betrayal" and "traitor" are unacceptable from a 'Christian' perspective. Words of brotherly love should be expressed not hatred.
This is not unexpected, and those who believe otherwise have been fooling themselves.
There will be a 'remnant' that will embrace the Ordinariates but not the majority.
This is the way of all things.
I have been aware of Bishop Williams letter since shortly after it was sent out. It did not come as a surprise.
The thing that saddens me most about all this is the fact that the three bishops involved have pretended to their clergy and people that they have been in a long period of discernment about the proper response to Anglicanorum Coetibus while they gathered information. In fact, I received information last December or January – I have not searched my files for the exact time – concerning a discussion that the three held in December in which their strategy for maintaining control of their respective dioceses and of the ACA was discussed. Their whole plan was premised on the decision they had made not to enter an Ordinariate. At the time, I discussed this with various responsible and interested parties and urged action. It was decided not to act in the hope that attitudes might change.
While I have sensed that my own bishop (Strawn) might at times have been conflicted over his path, I have nothing concrete to base that on. Bits and pieces of information have continued to come to me all year that have served to reinforce the picture of a concerted plan by these men to lead as many as possible away from entry into the Ordinariate. True, they have committed themselves not to stand in the way of those who do want to accept the Holy Fathers offer; but, since they lack the ability to interfere, that means little.
Though profoundly sorry for them for the tragic mistake which I am convinced they are making, I have always urged and continue to urge generous treatment to those who will not join us on the journey. However, these three bishops have violated a specific and most profound commitment upon which their very consecrations as bishop was premised; they have negotiated without any authority with another ecclesial body behind the back of the proper TAC and ACA authorities; and they have betrayed the collegiality of the TAC College of Bishops and of the ACA House of Bishops by forming a cabal to work outside of and in opposition to the stated purposes and plans of those bodies. There must be some serious negative consequences for them. The remaining TAC/ACA bishops must decide upon the specific steps to be taken and I will, of course, support the action they decide upon. For my part – barring their sincere and complete repentance – I urge that these men be deprived of any position of trust or authority in the TAC or the ACA.
So first of all the one really good ACA parish in Colorado is Diocese of Missouri Valley. I was so looking forward to them coming into the Catholic Church. The priest there thought it was a good idea but does this mean that he won't be coming in at all? Is it up to the individual parish?
Secondly how can the ACA pass up this opportunity? They are desperately in need of young fresh blood, which can only be provided by those of us who are in the Roman Catholic Church. I was offered the chance to be a ACA seminarian but declined because I could not see myself in 60 years having any sort of parish left. At 22 I am the youngest person in my ACA parish by 40 years! The average age of a congregant is 80! In twenty years there won't be a parish left! But I was SO eager to serve the same congregations as an Ordinariate priest because I knew that it would be sustaining. I know this because so many young Roman Catholics are eager to have an Ordinariate! Bishop, you haven't built up the body of Christ, all you've done is decided to build yourself and your parishes a coffin.
Lastly, and then I'll be quiet, I am not despairing for the future of the Ordinariate. As was pointed out in an early article, the majority of congregants for the Ordinariate in the US will come from RC parishes. In fact as a diocesan RC seminarian I have already received permission to study the Anglican Use to serve at, or start, an Anglican Use parish in Denver, regardless of the status of the Ordinariate. I will greatly miss my ACA brothers and sisters and I will pray that they will come around to their senses but I had no worries about the success of the Ordinariate. Anglicanism will find a home, back where it always belonged, in the Roman Catholic Church.
Thank you Robert Smith for such wise and thoughtful words. I agree with you entirely. I thought all the bishops of the TAC solemnly agreed to come into union with the Church Catholic. Have Bp. Strawn and the others forsworn themselves? If so, shame.
I totally agree with you. There is an ACA parish forming in San Diego and I was/still am hoping it becomes apart of the church. I want to, along with a lot of other Roman Catholics want to switch and Ordinariate.
And may God Bless you in your process to ordination, and congratulations on having such a great RC Bishop that is letting you study the Anglican Use so you can create a parish.
*switch to
Let us be clear about one thing: the ACA is not passing up this or any other opportunity with regards to taking advantage of the Apostolic Constitution. The rogue actions of certain members of the House of Bishops does not define the will of the whole House. Let us also remember that the ACA is but a single member of the Traditional Anglican Communion. The larger body is not afflicted by these machinations – their bishops have been straightforward in their support for the offer extended by Rome in response to the request of the TAC College of Bishops.
In charity let us pray for those who find they must take another course. And, for those of us who do plan to enter an Ordinariate, let us pray that we may have courage to stay the course as we await the implementation of the generous offer made to us in the Apostolic Constitution.
Robert Smith:
Don't despair! A winnowing process is underway. There will be parishes, clergy, and laity who are in the Diocese of the Missouri Valley who will be moving into the Ordinariate. Gideon's army is being hand picked through all this turmoil.
Why? The splintering and division will continue without a real effort toward real visible unity with the Catholic Church.
J.M.J.
The Bishops of the TAC signed this statement:
"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."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff.
It will be interesting to see how they are going to now distance themselves from the statement they signed.
SWR
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Sadly, these bishops want to fight over the meatless bones of TEC rather than returning to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. I fear they will starve and rip each other apart while fighting in the never ending, Protestant-style splitting battle between groups like the APA, ACC, AEC, AOC, APCK, DGL, DHC, HCC-WR, OAC, OAComm, UECNA…
With regard to "betrayal," I believe in the Canon of the Mass the betrayal of Jesus by Judas is mentioned, when the priest say's, "Who in the same night that he was betrayed, took bread…." So the concept of betrayal does exist and is acceptable from a Christian perspective. Thus Christian Campbell's rather apropos reference to the thirty pieces of silver.
So what of betrayal? Father Berry points out that the three bishops violated their commitment to the TAC by negotiating without any authority with another ecclesial body behind the back of the proper TAC and ACA authorities and that they betrayed their fellow Bishops by working against the stated goals of their own Communion. I believe that Father Berry is correct. No matter how you cut it, that's betrayal.
Also one should not confuse hurt, or for that matter anger, with hatred. I certainly don't sense hatred against those who are going in a different direction. I sense the pain of parting friends. However, their deed is done and if they and their people find a spiritual home in the APA, APCK, ACC (org. prov.), ACNA, Anglican Communion etc. etc. well then God bless them.
For me, the Anglican Ordinariates represent the best future for the Anglican expression of the Catholic faith. There is no question, however, that this is the time to remain strong and deeply committed to entering the Ordinariates.
I understand the disappointment that many of you feel. However, I also hope that you to understand the intense pressure that a lot of the bishops and clergy are under. Here in Canada, where the bishops are all strongly supportive of the Apostolic Constitution, our diocese has lost a number of parishes and clergy this summer. Here in Ottawa, our parish has just lost a quarter of its members. It is far too easy to simply call this is a "winnowing process", etc. We don't see chaff. We see lost sheep.
Many of our people really and truly are not capable of facing this sort of change at this time, either for psychological reasons, or for reasons of conscience. They may be genuinely struggling to come to terms with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and feel that it would be wrong to embrace it. Some of them were honestly shocked by the College of Bishops' endorsement of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, since they didn't understand what it meant – they didn't know whether this signaled a change in the doctrine of our church, or whether this had really been what we were committed to all along. Some have had negative experiences with Roman clergyman in the past, and feel threatened by the possibility of being under Vatican authority. Whether these concerns are rational or correct has nothing to do with the very real impact they have on these souls.
I think of what Jacob said to Esau, when Esau wanted Jacob to accompany him back home. Jacob asked to be allowed to go slowly, saying to Esau, "My lord knows that the children are weak, and that the cattle and sheep that are nursing their young are a care to me. And if they are driven hard one day, all the flocks will die."
While the subject of this letter is disturbing and unfortunate, I am not the least bit worried about it. I am saddened that these bishops, and their followers, will not join us at this time, but the loss is more theirs than ours. I don't mean to come across as conceited here. This isn't about us. It's about history.
When it comes to the ordinariate I'm a firm believer in the saying "if you build it, they will come." The ordinariate will be built just as soon as the Holy Father names the bishop. Once that happens an unstoppable chain of events will begin. Parishes and missions will quickly be incorporated into his jurisdiction. Once that happens, other prayer groups from various areas will spontaneously form requesting pastoral oversight, quickly filling the void created by these few bishops and their followers who refused to join us. Yes, those prayer groups may be small at first, but they will grow, and with pastoral oversight from the ordinary bishop they will have a clear mission and identity.
In time the ordinariate will surpass in size all the "continuing" Anglican groups combined. Within a generation the American ordinariate will surpass the size of all the "continuing" Anglican groups and The Episcopal Church combined. It is inevitable, because it is Catholic, and the Holy Spirit Himself will make it happen, just as He has for every other Catholic body. So you see, the loss is more theirs than ours. We are fortunate and blessed enough to participate in the ordinariate and thus play a role in history that will not soon be forgotten. For some strange reason however, a few bishops from the ACA have chosen not to take part of that. Oh well.
This is very sad.
The fact is that this will be the process. Not all of those Catholic minded Anglicans will take up the offer of the Ordinariate.
My fear is that the time delay between announcing Anglicanorum Coetibus and the appearance of some real and actual progress towards the creation of an Ordinariate is not helping. If anyone from the CDF is reading this we need to see progress. Human weakness is such that the longer and more arduous the journey the more travelers will fall by the wayside.
My prayers for all in the ACA.
This is sad – but understandable.
After all, as the comments of a learned Canadian TAC member indicate (see earlier post), even doctrinal issues that any Catholic would imagine were unquestioned by these very confidently self-identified Anglo-Catholics – the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption – are in fact real stumbling blocks in a way that speaks of the reactions of High Churchmen in 1854, not 2010. Add to that issues disciplinary and pastoral – the question of irregular marital situations, plus fears, real or imaginary, of Rome and her priests and bishops – and the sad truth that even this once-in-400 year offer will prove a bridge too far for many becomes evident.
No one should cross the Ponte Benedetto unless they can do so with a clear conscience. At the same time, we must continue to point out, in real concern not in haughty meanness, that to try and forge unity in the Alphabet Soup, while better than nothing, will not in the end amount to much: as a friend of mine said, "In the TAC, it ain't springtime" – Hepworth and all others who have fought for this reunion with Rome are the ones with eyes wide open, since they know that, whatever the very real costs, the only long-term hope for Anglicanism is back in full communion with Peter: "Look to the Rock whence ye were hewn" (Isaiah 51:1).
Pastors should know that leading their flock means gently but firmly guiding them to good pasture and springs of living water – not letting the sheep wander withersoever they please, not following the flock.
What HAS been needed, and HAS been conspicuously lacking, it transpires, has been the TAC clergy, at least in the States, fulfilling their appointed ministry of teaching their people – and that means teaching the Catholic beliefs that the TAC episcopate solemnly declared they held. If signing the Catechism was just a nice gesture, and really these men in mitres were High Church Protestants at heart, then the fear of Catholics that Anglicanism is Janus-faced have been confirmed yet again.
I don't post very often, but this is rather disturbing to me. I don't know how anyone can call himself a bishop who doesn't, you know, shepherd his flock. This whole, "Oh, well, it's not very popular with some of our people so we're not going to do it" crap is ridiculous. It's the bishops' responsibility to catechize the faithful about why this reunion is necessary. It's the moral equivalent of taking a lamb by crook and steering him away from stumbling off a cliff. It's spineless and, yes, traitorous for these "bishops" to punt like this.
My two cents. Thank heaven for those Anglican faithful who have shown themselves willing to pull through on this, particularly those on this blog.
Where is the fullness of faith to be found? Certainly not in such divisions, double-standards and resistance to Unity. Sadly, instead of travailing on and pressing towards Unity, the Bishops of the Anglican Church in America have now effectively elected to continue in a fractured state.
The point is, they are moving in the wrong direction…
I have heard it rumoured that one or two of the bishops in the ACA have been divorced and remarried. This would make them not only unable to be considered for ordination as bishops in the Ordinariate, but even not to be eligible to be ordained as priests. This is clearly stated in the Constitution. Are any of these three dissenting bishops in this category? If so, it puts a different perspective on their actions.
And, if any of these bishops are DAR, were any of them also ordained after the events in Portsmouth? My understanding from Dr. Tighe was that DAR priests were indeed elevated to the episcopate after the signing of the Catechism. Fox, henhouse, etc.
I'm hardly surprised that William Tighe would've talked of such. He seems to have a bee in his bonnet, rather.
Well, as Our Lord spoke if it (DaR), and pretty clearly, too, then at least I'm in good company.
I think the matter is also very pertinent as to the motivation for what they are doing. These men currently have the status and ministry of bishops, possibly an income as well.
In the Ordinariate they would have to be content with the vocation of laymen due to their irregular marital status, and hence would have to sacrifice living, ministry, trappings of office and ecclesiastical status. They would be called to sacrifice far more than most entering the Ordinariates, and perhaps that is just too much for them to bear. It's nice being needed, and a tremendous loss when somebody doesn't need you anymore.
On a human level their actions are perfectly understandable, but I can't understand why they would have gone along with the project from the beginning – unless they were expecting something different in the small print.
I wouldn't have commented had it been the first time (or amongst the first times) I'd seen you comment on it. It would have seemed perfectly reasonable. However, it does seem sometimes that if there's a comment on the remarriage of clergy on the A-C blogosphere, it's made by you. I confess to finding it slightly wearing.
One of them was a diocesan bishop by the time of the Portsmouth meeting, and attended it; another was an assistant bishop, but didn't attend; and the third became a bishop early in the following year.
Each of them solemnly swore to uphold the Catholic Faith as embodied in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and their fealty to the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ either in Portsmouth as part of the unanimous collegial act of the TAC College of Bishops or subsequently and implicitly in their episcopal consecrations. There is no wiggle room for any of them.
I know Daren Williams personally, he is indeed divorced and remarried. He took a good and faithful group of us out of PECUSA and formed the now no longer functioning Church of the Incarnation in Williamsport, Pa. He is no pastor, after driving out many good people, he abandoned his sheep for a case of purple fever. I was a vestry member of said church, Daren only does what is best for Daren.
Bishop Williams is indeed very non-pastoral. He cares only for his purple shirt. He constantly tells us we work for him, not mentioning service to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Bishop Strawn has certainly changed his tune since June:
"Day Two of the annual synod of the ACA's Diocese of the Missouri Valley began with the bishop's address. Bishop Stephen Strawn's remarks were unambiguously supportive of the pursuit of corporate reunion under the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. "
You will note that the newer revision of Bishop Williams' letter actually suggests that the rouge bishops are taking this course of action to support and bless those who wish to move forward into a personal ordinariate! With friends like these…
While I am appalled by this as a Latin Catholic, I am not surprised by it. First of all, I think that the TAC needed better to prepare for its laics for doctrinal unity with Rome. While nearly all the TAC bishops swore on the C.C.C., I had no sense that all the TAC laity had somehow 'converted'. The TAC has always included Anglo-papalists, yes, but also others who do not accept all that the Catholic Church teaches and holds. We are now seeing some of these people departing; others are waiting for someone else to do something.
I also feel that the TAC leadership should have solved its liturgical chaos well before the turn of the millennium. Liturgical unity (even unity in accepting three or four alternate Mass texts) in a Catholic spirit would do much to foster a sense of common purpose and common faith. If a certain group prays in a Catholic way, its members will find it natural to seek unity with the Patriarch of the West.
Of course, some blame goes to Rome here: delay is deadlier than denial. The liberal saboteurs in the Latin Church have worked co-operatively with their opposites in the Canterburian Communion to scuttle this endeavour of the Holy Father. Being unable to stop His Holiness, they have sought, instead, to cripple his project. If you can't prevent its coming, you can try to keep it as small as possible–invisible, even.
Still, while much of this was mishandled and/or sabotaged from the beginning, I think that the ordinariates will be successful and spiritually advantageous; they will be a wonderful contributor to that unity in diversity that is so badly needed in Holy Church. Some parts of the TAC will need to 'get themselves sorted' Perhaps some TACers need time to see the ordinariates in action, to see that they are not some mechanism to gobble up the Anglican patrimony, and to see that there is little future in mergings with other fast-disappearing groups.
In the shorter term, there will be various mergings and schisms but, in the end, the declining 'continuers' will continue to decline, the ordinariates will grow, and the Canterburian Communion will get madder and madder. They'lls be Baptizing one another in Coca Cola before this is over. Let them go to it. We have a world to convert to Christ and His holy and Immaculate Mother.
P.K.T.P.
This is very sad, but it's only natural that some will not be ready at this point. However, a sentence in Williams' letter suggests that it is precisely something in the (dis)order of nature which prevents him from making the move, and which may be a permanent impediment to him doing so:
"This is intended to provide opportunities in ministry for all of us as we continue to love one another as brothers, whether or not we agree."
Could it be that a little of the "looking after number one" attitude is what really influences these decisions? And if there are skeletons in their cupboards which would create impediments to their taking up active ministry in the Ordinariates, would it not be more honest to be open about this to the people to whom they propose to continue ministering?
"…responses to the present emergency… One is what I called the 'non-jurors', those who soldier on, know that they are a dying breed, but are content to be witnesses of what they have always believed and practised. Some mainly elderly clergy and congregations are of that view." – from +Ebbsfleet's latest pastoral.
Yes, this is the sad truth: the Continuum a.k.a. Alphabet Soup is a dead end, a nursing home for genteel, nostalgic lost causes, just as were – for all their piety – the Nonjurors: a noble tragedy.
It is very sad, but better a broken engagement than a divorce. I should also like to add that the terms of the Holy See's offer are for former Anglicans and the ordinariate is not to be used as a bolt hole for Anglophile crade catholics. That is the sad case with the majority who are attending the Anglican Use parishes. The Anglican Use in 27 years has actually only attracted considerably less than 0.1 per cent of American Episcopalians.
LET US KEEP UP OUR PRAYERS TO ST THOMAS MORE, ST JOHN FISHER AND BLESSED JOHN HENRY NEWMAN.
When the A. U. parishes began, membership was made up overwhelmingly of former Episcopalians. With the passage of time (some of our parishes have existed for more than a generation), a very large portion of parish membership is now comprised of people who have raised their children here. As much as we love to welcome converts (and we receive a good number of them each year), we no longer depend primarily on conversions for our growth. Our families are taking care of that quite well, since they joyfully follow the Church's teaching about marriage and family life.
Sadly, so many of today's Episcopalians are so poorly formed in basic Christian teaching, I think there will be fewer converts in coming years, especially since TEC is shrinking each year.
This, then, will be one of the purposes of the Ordinariates — to preserve and nurture an Anglican culture that would otherwise be in great danger of being lost altogether.
Bishop Williams signed "in his own proper person" the documents of the Portsmouth Synod in 2007, as his two colleagues did not; this makes him to a far greater degree a perjured knave than are they — although why these other two were not made to give an explicit affirmation of both the documents and the process when they became bishops others may know, but not I. but, then, Bishop Williams is also DaR (divorced-and-remarried), as is one of his two conspiratorial colleagues. One becomes used, perhaps, to repudiating solemn commitments in such circumstances.
Dr. Tighe, I think that's going a little too far.
Well, he did repudiate the solemn commitment he made at Portsmouth; that's clear enough. And aren't bishops supposed to lead their flocks, not to follow their ill-informed apprehensions and prejudices? And as to the DaR business, it seems pretty clear he never should have become a bishop in the first place.
I don't ordinarily do blogs, but this one (pointed out by a friend) seems filled with uncommonly good sense, even if it's a sorry picture that's painted.
Let's face it. Even in the TAC we have been careless in the choice of candidates for the priesthood and episcopacy, ignoring St Paul's advice to St Timothy. So we have bishops with spotty marital histories — worse yet, bishops who will do anything to keep their purple shirts and pointy hats and independent-as-a-hog-on-ice authority. And we have priests who have no idea what it means to be a priest. The Ordinariate, when it comes, will be a great relief.
RPH+
We knew not all of the TAC's laity and priests would enter the Ordinariate. Of the parishes that will not enter, if they are to have priests there must also be bishops. Thus, while I hoped every ACA bishop would enter the ordinariate, I think we always feared there would be a split when the time came to actually cross the Tiber. To do it, these bishops would have to offer their submission to the Pope and entrust those they leave behind to God, giving up their own charge over them. Many factors, whether reasons of conscience, concern for those left behind, pride, etc, press against making such a move.
In some respects, the Pope has called the bluff. Either you are ready to make the leap or you are not – excuses will no longer do. It appears these gentlemen are not ready, but thanks to the Pope's offer, they now have to say so openly and chart their new course.
It all seems very sad, but I would suggest that this episode is also rather necessary. Truth will out, and so it is. Where the hearts of men really are is becoming known through their actions more than their words. Some have professed a desire for the Ordinariate, but when they consider their own positions and reality, then begin to look for other avenues. Others have not been so duplicitous, but have honestly found that they cannot find home with Rome. The latter are not to be blamed at all for it is a working out of their conscience and they should be wished well and no acrimony. The former carry the blame of dishonesty and of breaking clearly understood principles that they were obliged to support and hold. And yet, as sad as this tell is, I don't see it as a catastrophe. Rather it seems to be a necessary pruning and adjustment. God is indeed pruning the branches so that more fruit might grow.
I do not frequently post here…
However, in light of this news, which can be termed, at best, an impaired relationship among the ACA House of Bishops, I find it necessary to again call for a diocese-by-diocese list of every congregation which can, at this time, openly state their collective intention to move forward towards the Ordinariate.
It is a fact that there are already several ACA clerics who post on this blog and it is no secret as to which congregations or even which bishops have opposed the Ordinariate.
So, I say, lets step up, please! Let us list those parishes within the ACA, and even outside of it, who wholeheartedly support the AC. We should no longer have to collect this information in a piecemeal fashion, from disparate blog posts and hearsay. I was told before that this information would be forthcoming… it was not.
All of our communities, whether Ordinariate-bound or not, should be kept in prayer.
However, these Ordinariate-bound communities in particular, should become known to the outside world, in order to begin to build bridges and familiarize ourselves with those who in a very real sense, will become part of our immediate spiritual family.
I believe our parish is one which comes as close to "wholeheartedly" supporting the AC as you will get. I doubt sincerely that there is any parish in which 100% of the congregants support the AC – as evidenced by the recent events in Ottawa. There are many people who harbor an irrational fear or dislike for anything associated with Roman Catholicism. Only the healing of the Holy Spirit will ever convert their hearts and heal their emotions, for this is truly an emotional problem as much as one theological.
In our parish of St. Barnabas, Omaha, NE, canonically resident in the Diocese of the Missouri Valley, there is great majority support and excitement about the AC. There are a few who, for whatever reason, may feel they cannot become a part of an Ordinariate at this time. They have been assured they will continue to have a part in the life of the parish and "will in no wise be cast out." It is impossible to convert someone who you have pushed out the door!
I agree most strongly that we continue to hold each other in prayer and not to give the evil one support for his "divide-and-conquer" tactics. Even if we go into different jurisdictions, let us honor each other as sons of God.
I must agree with Fr. Richard Harris; he is spot on. Although ++Hepworth is in the same position as some of these Bishops and maybe his marital issues are even more serious, he is going forth and leading his flock, not putting his own needs first, but those of TAC. No one is perfect, but it does take courage to know that one might go from being a Bishop to just a layman.
A year ago a man I know who hasn't said which Anglican group he belongs to, told me one of the major problems with many of the Continuing Anglican clergy is that they want to wear purple. He is not, at least for the moment, considering the Ordinariate, but his words ring true.
My concern is for the congregations who want and thought they were moving towards the Ordinariate and now are left out in the cold. Who shall take care of their needs? Their position is different than Anglicans going the opposite way as they will just join APA or another group. The ones who wish to become Catholic will also need a priest to lead them. I don't know the hearts of many of the priests in the ACA, but do know there are priests who are planning on joining the Ordinariate and possibly they will be able to be pastors to the ones left behind.
Let us not forget that Pope Benedict did speak of Anglicanorum Coetibus while in England and I believe that it was a message for both Catholic Bishops and Anglicans coming into the Church. It should give us comfort that he has not forgotten us and also a strong message to the Bishops that Anglicanorum Coetibus is not going away.
We can't judge the lay people for what their leaders have done and there are many who are followers, that is their nature, but I feel that there are others who are independent thinkers and will make their own decision regarding the Ordinariate and not allow these Bishops to speak for their need to become Catholic. I am sure that many people are hurting at this moment and we need to pray for them, as their trust in their Bishops has been broken.
I want to start by thanking all who have commented regarding this post, especially our Catholic brothers and sisters. It is as many of you have suggested a good thing in the respect that these men are not, nor ever aspired to be Catholics. Consequently, they would have been problem-children in the Ordinariate, something we will not need in the formative stages.
I would like to address some criticism that maybe the language used to describe these men was harsh or unwarranted. I have to clarify for those of you who do not realize it, but Mr. Campbell and I (along with many others on the inside of the ACA) knew this was coming a long time ago. We are not casual observers in this matter. We were self-conscious about what we posted, and we edited or refrained from posting some things we knew would bring a negative light on the antics of these folks in hopes that the Lord would see fit to bring them in line with the Church to which they made promises. However, this was not to be. They have taken a public action and therefore must be brought to a public account. There must be a reckoning, and part of this reckoning is being up front with what they have done, which by dictionary definition is betrayal. They have violated by unfaithfulness the doctinal standards of the body in which they were consecrated, they have been misleading about their actions up to this point, they have violated their allegiance. Again, this is by definition traitorous. If they had left the ACA, or even given annoucement of their intentions to do so, I would have wished them God speed. However, they accepted consecration in a body whose ecumenical trajectory they knew without equivocation, but they chose to accept consecration knowing full well they were not, nor would be faithful to the TAC's doctrinal standards. They wanted purple shirts and all was well until they saw the specter of not being able to be called "bishop" in the Ordinariate. Self-absorbed, prideful men cannot countenance obedience, they are a rule unto themselves. This has been an issue since the garden. Be that as it may, I for one thank God their duplicity is now public, and soon to be someone else's problem. I do hope Bishop Grundorf is given the grace of discernment to realize what sort of men he may bring into the midst of his flock.
As for these bishops, I have only one thought, Sacramental Confession.
"Doc"+
Two things, please:
1) Bishop Daren is obviously "out of the closet"; but what evidence is there that Bps Steve and Brian are his co-conspirators?
2) I and my Anglicanorum coetus are "Ordinariate-bound or Bust"; where do we, currently(?) being in the DMV, go from here?
Fr.,
E.g., +Marsh is having Bishop Grundorf speak at his upcoming Synod.
As for your second question, let's see how things fall out over the next few days, and allow for some in-house discussion.
I think the bishops are paying attention to a groundswell of opinion in the parishes. Before I became a Catholic I fought it every step of the way. Let's not criticise, but pray.
J.M.J.
But their job is to lead and not to follow.
They have previously stated in writing their agreement with the following:
"816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267"
How does that fit with their current actions and their leadership?
SWR
Out of interest, is St Barnabas still technically in the Episcopal Diocese? I noticed that the Episcopal Diocese claims it as a congregation. Do you envision property litigation if you join the Ordinariate… or am I mistaken? I don't think the local Catholic Diocese would like that.
St. Barnabas left TEC in 2006. We are currently in litigation for the property. I am personally first-named in their suit. Interestingly enough, our intent to enter into communion with the Roman Church through the terms of the Apostolic Constitution has been a plus in the negotiations for the property. The Presiding Bishop of TEC will allow for some sort of settlement as long as the property will not be used as an "Anglican" church. There are other terms in her idea of a "settlement" that are problematic – enough said for legal reasons.
We joined the ACA in part because we knew of the overtures they had made for intercommunion with the Holy See. Archbishop Falk, a great friend of our parish, has worked tirelessly for over twenty years to bring about what eventually became the Apostolic Constitution. We follow him in fealty to the acceptance of the terms stated in Anglicanorum Coetibus.
Well…the failure of some bishops and clergy to jump aboard the Ordinariate Express is, to me, a feature and not a bug. The more some of the unordainable or oughtabe unordainables stampede for the exits, the better it will be for the more serious-minded folks. Just don't let any of the nasty lay Anglican popes try to exert control either.
Father Scheiblhofer, what great news, Saint Barnabas is a place I know well. I lived in Omaha many years, and may be returning. I look forward to worshipping with you. I returned to Holy Mother Church in 2005, will pray for you all at Saint B's on your journey, and welcome home!
Dear Richard Peterson,
Are you speaking of the Church of the Resurrection in San Diego? I am sure that they are coming into the Ordinariate, but they are a Vietnamese parish, which is wonderful, but since their liturgy is in another language it won't work for those who speak English. Or is there another group forming? I know of one TEC priest who just left TEC and I am not sure if he intends on coming into the Ordinariate or not.
Also another priest who is associated with the Church of the Resurrection, might in the future have a following. I was just curious as to which parish you are referring to.
I do believe that when and I know that the Ordinariates will be established, that others will follow. It will take time, but we all must realize that God is really in charge and we must follow His lead and time. I have hopes that my former parish will vote to enter and if they don't I think that some will be a seed mission for others. The parish is further than I would like, but I am willing to travel, it is in the Los Angeles area.
Please don't give up hope. When someone posts why didn't the ones who knew what was going on with the three Bishops didn't let us know, I believe that they wanted it to come from the source and not speculate and cause further anxiety for us.
What does Newman say? 'I drink to the Pope, but to conscience first.' If people in good conscience believe that they cannot accept the Ordinariate and must follow another path, then they are morally obliged to follow that course – quod non est ex fide est peccatum. We may not like it, but it is not our place to judge and condemn them.
I agree that if one does it because of conscience of course we don't condemn them. The question is why these Bishops actually decided at this time to bail.
Even if they had personal agendas we are not the ones who judge anyone, it is only God who knows their hearts.
Also Jesus had anger at times towards what was being done in the Temple etc. That is the interpretation I am reading from these posts. It appears that some here had inside information that we did not know about.
I give the moderator and others credit for not bringing this to our attention until Bishop Williams wrote the letter. We all are in a state of limbo and unless the issue affects us, it is sometimes best to wait until there is substance.
Hopefully this will be the last surprise and Rome can start establishing the Ordinariates now that the decisions have been made by the majority of the different groups on whether they will be part of the Ordinariate or not.
Rev. Fr.
The issue at stake is one of truth and strength of character. I challenge your statement that it is one of conscience. Let me tell you why.
When any individual accepts the mantel of bishop he assumes the responsibility of truth, of moral fiber to do that which is right in spite of his personal feelings and possible loss of stature. As to Bishop Williams' case in the signing of the Portsmouth Petition, no one placed him in harm’s way forcing him to sign the document. This he did freely and of his own accord. In doing this he openly committed before the entire Christian world his word and honor as a Bishop to lead his flock as a loving shepherd to Rome. This he is failing to do thus dishonoring the office of bishop and breaking those vows he took at his ordination of fealty to his church and his office. No, this is not a matter of conscience but one of trust, truth and commitment to God.
In the case of the other two bishops, neither one was at the signing of the Portsmouth document thus being ordained at a later date. Before either one was raised to the vaunted office of bishop they each fully knew the commitment made by the ACA and the TCA College of Bishops. There should have been no question in each of their minds as to the responsibility laying before them in leading their respective flocks across the Tiber. This they freely accepted. The crossing of their fingers during ordination does not negate their responsibilities. I suggest that in each case it is not a matter of conscience, but rather a blatant attempt before God and man to save their coveted purple shirts and income.
No Fr., this is not a matter of conscience but one of truth and strength of character as a man of God.
But Father Macready is a former Catholic priest, now married and working within ACA.
No wonder he doesn't want the Apostolic Constitution. The AC makes it very clear that a person in such a position could not serve within the Catholic Church.
However we must also remember that the ACA bishops pledged to uphold the 39 articles, which are in many key areas in direct contradiction of the Catholic Church. That as a body ACA was not uniformly Anglo-Catholic. Quite simply that lower church ecclesiology has emerged. But better now than at the wedding! However I do pray that the faithful remnant continue their pilgrimage to reconciliation with the Holy See.
Hold on there! Unless you have first-hand information from Fr. McCready I would suggest you not assume to read the hearts of others and speculate on their decisions. I know Father personally and have great respect for him. From our discussions I would say you are 180 degrees off and suggest an apology might be in order. Fr. McCready is too much of a gentleman to ever respond to an accusation such as you have made. Being an old curmudgeon of a priest, I have no qualms in doing such.
Speaking the truth in as much charity as I can muster.
Mr. Williams:
You got two things correct. 1. Fr. McCready is a former Roman Catholic Priest and 2. he is married. I am his wife and find your post offensive and possibly, most egregious, you are passing off your own assumptions as fact in a public forum.
How, exactly, do you feel you have the authority or knowledge to speak on behalf of my husband? You couldn’t even spell his name correctly. He said, and I quote, “We may not like it, but it is not our place to judge and condemn them.” How do you twist this and turn it into that he is for or against anything other than treating our brothers and sisters with Christian charity?
I will not share my husband’s stance on this issue out of my great respect for him both as my husband and as a wonderful, compassionate Priest. He can speak for himself. Mr. Williams, next time, I suggest you do the same.
Mrs. Andrea McCready
The ACA was originally founded to be a more broader representation of Anglicanism, and from the start encompassed less markedly Anglo-Catholic elements. The ACA bishops pledged to uphold the 39 articles and the 1928 prayer Book and they have that to consider as well.
Lets pray for them, not deride them.
J.M.J.
It's all well and good and very nice and all that to go on and on about these individuals' conscience etc., and how we should not criticize them.
That is fine for them as individuals, but that is not what is happening here.
If they can't lead, then step aside from their leadership roles and as individuals follow their consciences into schism I.e. refusal of submission to the roman pontiff.
When they retain their leadership roles and through them lead souls away from unity with the Sucessor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, that is a most serious matter.
I do agree we don't need to judge them, I think our Blessed Lord quite capable of handling that part one day.
They should simply distance themselves from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and say they did not mean it when they signed it or they have since changed their minds.
SWR
Two thoughts:
1) Much of this language has been rather brutal and I hope that it will not be misread or misinterpreted. The language and the criticism refers to the bishop, not to those not joining the Ordinariates, at least in my reading. There are good, loving, caring people who will not be joining the Ordinariates, for good, loving reasons. Each of us are on a journey that takes us different routes and maybe different places. I know that it took me years to leave Anglicanism, and since I live thousands of miles from an Anglican Use parish, I still miss it nearly every Sunday. May this process bring us closer to God and may the Holy Ghost keep our hearts open to Him and to each other.
2) Where's the theology in the letter? Shouldn't a bishop's letter on such an issue at least have some reference to scripture and tradition? Where are the quotes? Where is the brief summary of theological objections?
I know that there are others who have expressed those reservations and that the bishop would mostly be repeating, but to me that is a bishop's job, to sift through what others have said and highlight those theological points that are sound. Failure to provide a summary of his theological objections alongside the other points is, at least to me, to fall down on the job, in short to fail to fulfill his responsibilities as a bishop. This was a great opportunity for him to become a true leader of his flock by articulating fully in clear terms the most persuasive theological arguments, rooted in scripture and tradition, to back up his decision. He didn't to do that. He punted.
I will continue to pray for those who are conflicted over this issue. Much as I miss Anglicanism — and deep in my heart I do miss it — I am comfortable with my decision. It was a long journey. It was my journey. May yours bring you the comfort that mine has.
Thank you, dear Fr Rob, for your kind words, because I am somewhat annoyed to have my position so absolutely misrepresented. I am fully in favour of the Ordinariate; I intend to apply for it this very day; the only reason I have not yet done so is that I have been toiling continually in the vineyard.
Mr Williams does serve to illustrate what I am very strongly opposed to, which is a lack of charity, leading to harsh language and temerarious judgment. Knowing one of the Bishops in question extremely well, I will repeat that I believe him to be acting in strict accord with his conscience, as every one of us is bound to do, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 1800). Of course we all have a duty to inform our conscience, but one of the trouble with all the vitriol being spewed out at the moment is that it will make a correct judgment harder for a number of people.
Please let us seek, all of us, to be more charitable!
It is understandable that some who post here are more in the loop as to what is going on behind the scenes than most of us. It is time for those who have the facts of what happened with the Bishops be told, as we have the right to the truth. But along with these facts, we must keep charitable inspite of our feelings of betrayal or hurt.
We do not want to be as some who have chosen to abandon the same road as we are taking and make hurtful comments as this turns away many who are seeking a loving and caring community. I know how I feel when I read some of the horrid descriptions of Anglicans who are heading towards Rome. These types of comments turn me off and brings to light the true character they hold.
Yes we must speak the truth, but also know that we are heading towards peace instead of still walking in the desert looking for something that doesn't exist and then must keep walking as each group turns out to be lacking in some area of the faith we are searching for.
We need to pray for all whether they are choosing a different path than we are. We also must not make assumptions that we can read the hearts of some, unless there is proof of what their goals are. I do believe that those who know must speak the truth as this is a battle for the souls of many.
I apologise unreservedly to the McCready's…. but the terms of the Ordinariate explicitly exclude a former Catholic priest from serving within it. Furthermore a Catholic priest who has married without being laicised and without the permission of the Catholic Church is not regarded as being married in the Catholic Church.
The dispensation from celibacy granted some convert clergy is not for former Catholics.
Mr. Williams' statements above are factually accurate to my best knowledge.
This development saddens me. As a Roman Catholic and parishioner of Our Lady of the Atonement, San Antonio (an Anglican use parish), I grieve for the obstacle these decisions will place in the paths of our brothers in traditional Anglican-Catholic parishes. Our Lady is a shining example of the richness of the Anglican tradition under the umbrella of mother church, we have had NO interference related to liturgical practice and we are now filled with cradle Catholics who crave the solemnity of the high mass. I am confident that Rome would continue the level of automony needed to satisfy even the most persnickity Anglican and that your (sometimes) small parishes would soon swell with numerous cradle R-Catholics (many of them our younger members) who thirst for reverence and tradition.