Breaking News of a Wonderful Sort…

Below is news posted on an  Australian website earlier today. If true, and I strongly suspect it is, then this is thrilling news. Bishop Keith, (who baptised my little girl Jemima Mary), is a very pastoral, wise and wonderful man. Most who meet him speak of his warmth and love and I am personally thrilled that he could be nominated as the Ordinary for England.

BRITAIN'S Archbishop of Canterbury is expected to announce the resignation of two bishops on Monday, in the first of what is feared will be a wave of departures from the Church of England by traditionalists converting to Roman Catholicism.

The Bishop of Richborough, the Right Rev Keith Newton, 58, is expected to become leader of the Anglican Ordinariate, set up to provide Catholic refuge to Anglicans who leave the Church of England over the issue of women bishops.

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Right Rev Andrew Burnham, 63, is also expected to join the Ordinariate, along with the Bishop of Fulham, the Right Rev John Broadhurst, who announced last month that he will be resigning at the end of the year. A fourth retired bishop, Edwin Barnes, is also expected to join the Ordinariate.

Sources said that the Ordinariate is to be launched at Pentecost next year, seven weeks after Easter.

Both Newton and Burnham have been on study leave for the past month while they consider their positions.

The only part of this that I would not take too seriously is the mention of a wave. The first batch of leavers will be small as it needs both a committed priest and ready and willing congregation. It is the second wave that I think will be larger but even then it should not worry the Church of England too much. The Ordinariate offers a sanctuary and mission base for those wanting to worship as traditional Catholics but it also frees the Church of England to proceed with Women Bishops and create a more liberal, congregationalist and protestant shaped Church for the 21st Century.

Author: Fr. Ed Tomlinson

The son of an Anglican clergyman, Fr. Edward Tomlinson was born in Wigan before moving to Santiago, Chile as a baby where his father worked as a missionary with SAMS. He returned to England in time for schooling and spent those formative years in Norfolk attending the Cathedral school. He then moved to Homerton College, Cambridge before working as a primary school teacher in Colchester, Essex. It was here that the boy raised as an Evangelical (for which he gives thanks) encountered Anglo Catholic devotion for the first time. This soon led him to Westcott House in Cambridge to train for the priesthood. At Westcott the joy of encountering Anglo-Catholicism was dampened however by the horror of encountering liberal theology! The reason for his calling came into sharp focus as he avowed to stand up for the orthodox faith with every fibre of his being. A happy curacy at S. Thomas of Canterbury church in Brentwood prepared him for his current post as vicar of S. Barnabas’, Royal Tunbridge Wells. He writes a regular column for New Directions, the magazine of Forward in Faith and is also editor of the The Church Observer, a Church Union journal. In addition he writes a daily blog which, much to his surprise, continues to gain a loyal following. He is married to Hayley, a painting conservator at the National Gallery, and has two young children Jemima and Benedict.

65 thoughts on “Breaking News of a Wonderful Sort…”

  1. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not Britain’s Archbishop. He is the senior Archbishop in England . The Archbishop of Canterbury has no jurisdiction in Wales, Scotland or N Irlenad.

    I like Keith Newton but he is married. He therefore cannot be a bishop in the Ordinariate. Surely the Ordinariate for England needs a younger chap capable of being consecrated. I also have questions about having a man who has been a leader in FiF. I think one the problems with FiF has been the lack of change and growth at the top and it does not strike me as being good that we get more of the same.

    My understanding is that the Ordinary will be drawn from the Presbyteral Council. As there is no Council as yet all of the talk is speculation , however attractive it may sound.

    1. Father,

      In all good fun, you sound about as positive on this development as N.T. Wright did earlier in the week about the ordinariates in general. Has the wind from St. Andrew's been blowing in your direction?

      We all need to wait for more facts, which hopefully won't be long in coming from more reliable sources, but there is no bar to the ordinary being a married man.

      1. Dear Br Stephen,
        Fear not the wind from St Andrews never reaches me. I did spend one academic year in that town many years ago. It is a beautiful place but far too cold for a wee Gallovadian like me.
        I will try to be cheerful but I would rather here that a younger single chap was being tipped. It will be better for the English Ordinariate and better for Keith Newton . 58 is no age to start running around England in a new and stressful job.

        1. Fr Crosbie,

          You say 58 is no age to start running around England in a new and stressful job. I just want to say one thing. Pope Benedict was elected at the age of 78 and the current Archbishop of Westminster was appointed at the age of 63. Therefore +Keith is a mere youngster!

  2. I accept that Bishop Keith is married. But nowhere does it say that the Ordinary cannot be a priest and not a bishop. Given that each Ordinariate parish will also be within a Roman Catholic diocese this will not be problematic.

    A good option I think, though I take the point about lack of change in FIF leadership. Trouble with that was that so many in the generation below left for Rome in 1992…

    1. I am aware that the Ordinary can be a priest. It just seems to me that if England is going to have a decent number of priests and people in the Ordinariate it would be better if the man chosen to be the Ordinary was a bit younger and capable of being consecrated. The English Ordinariate will be spread over a vast geographical area . The job of being Ordinary will be extremely hard work and involve lots of travel and overnight stays.
      I would have joined your excitement if the man tipped was younger and capable of consecration. Ideally someone who is not a big player on FiF stage.
      I think the lack of movement is more to do with people hanging on than the result of 1992.

      1. Although it would be nice to have bishops consecrated for the Ordinariates, it is helpful that non-episcopal ordinaries will have almost all the powers of a bishop. For example, although Anglicans have generally reserved the faculty to confirm to bishops, it would be perfectly proper for a priestly ordinary to confer that sacrament.

        Also, an ordinary would not have to do all the work of visitation himself. If there are three active C of E bishops joining the Ordinariate (plus an additional retired C of E bishop), certainly some of the visitation work could be split up between them.

        Finally, there is no rule that a celibate bishop joining an ordinariate would have to be elected as ordinary in order to be consecrated. There is one retired, celibate, Anglican bishop resident in England who intends to join the English Ordinariate. If it was desired to have Holy Orders conferred on ordinariate priests by a bishop who was himself a member of the Ordinariate, this might be a potential solution.

  3. big job?……. 58 ?…….62?…… remind me how old was Churchill when he succeeded Chamberlain? I think that one counts as a big job!

    1. There is no doubt that Churchill did do a big job at a mature age. He had his own driver, trains and other transport at his disposal and a rather large support staff. I very much doubt that the Ordinary of the Ordinariate in England will have any of these support structures. Travelling all of England supporting small new congregations is no job for something in his late 50's

    2. JP2 was 58 when elected Pope, and was hailed as a bright young thing. Say what you like about Papists – we aren't ageist.

    1. I hope he is still going for many years to come. I dont see that the two jobs can be that easily compared.

  4. In my opinion a well seasoned priest or Bishop would be much better than one who is young and with much less experience.

    Whether one wishes for young or old, the real excitment is that the Ordinariates are moving along and it looks as though announcements will be coming soon.

    I would like to see more positive remarks than the ones that have lately been on the Anglo Catholic. If we start out small that is fine with me. Jesus started with 12 and look where the Church is now.

    Whether Bishop Keith is the chosen one or not, is not the issue, whoever the person will be it is a wonderful step for the Ordinariates. I am sure after the first one is named, all the others will also be announced.

    Praise be to Jesus Christ.

    1. It wouldn't surprise me if the first Ordinary was only appointed for a relatively short period of time, perhaps 2-3 years, and was someone with extensive previous experience in a similar field. This is based on my own experience (not related to church matters in any way) of two disparate but similar organisations coming together to form a new organisation: the person at the top needed to hit the ground running, so to speak, and an experienced compromise candidate (nearing retirement) was agreed upon by both groups. The compromise candidate was not universally loved, but he had the broadest cross-group support (and those who weren't enamoured of him were satisfied that he would soon retire). By the time he did retire, he had skilfully welded the two groups together, and his successor was a person of the New Organisation who came with very little Old Organisation baggage. As a whole, the strategy was pretty effective.

  5. Bishop Keith Newton will be perfect. The Ordinary will need to be a man who has some experience as a bishop in the C of E, & has been a pastor & leader of anglocatholics – even if he is only a married catholic priest.

  6. LOL…..58 is not old. I fell on the floor when I read "The job of being Ordinary will be extremely hard work and involve lots of travel and overnight stays." and "Travelling all of England supporting small new congregations is no job for something in his late 50's".

    I have no horse in the race since I am in the Generation X category but to label a 58 year old like that is just funny. That is thinking from 40 or 50 years ago.

    To be 58 or 62 is not old. Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger is in his 60's and very active. I could name any number of rock stars like Rod Stewart and David Bowie who are in their 60's and quite active and going over the place. Nancy Pelosi (the rather feisty Speaker of the House) is 70 years old and appears sharp, tough and very active (though I do not agree with her politics). GW Bush is atheletic and in his early 60's……and on and on. Don't even get me started with CEO's who travel all over and make major decisions.

    There may be many reasons why +keith is not right for the job of being Ordinary but being 58 is not one of them. Man……you gave me a laugh for the day. Quit thinking old yourself.

    1. Good for you, Anonymous Reader (crazy name, by the way!). +Keith Newton would be an excellent choice in every way.
      Why do we hear disparaging remarks about Forward in Faith? Where should we be now, without its efforts since it was founded?

  7. So Br Stephen has rumbled me… it is the picture in the attic which is the old version. You really would not want to see that. Incidentally, John Richards of happy memory did a terrific job, covering the whole of the Canterbury Province single-handed for the first couple of years, drove himself some 40,00 miles in his first year alone, besides many train journeys. I seem to recall he was 60 when he was consecrated first Bishop of Ebbsfleet – and still the English Hierarchy trembled before him.

  8. This business about age seems to me to be a lot of "Monday morning quarterbacking". Too old, Ha, that will be me in ten years.

    Pentecost, the Churches birthday seems like a great time to start the ordinariates.

  9. It would be deeply unworthy of me to imply that Fr Crosbie is merely piqued at being overlooked for the post himself. So, naturally, I sha'n't. After all, Fr C must be aware that he has disqualified himself – on the grounds of excessive youth, that is.

    1. Early Sunday morning.

      This made me laugh. Not being English and not being part of the C of E magic circle I was never likely to be anywhere near being considered. Remember the chocie of Keith Newton has not been made. It is rumour only.

  10. I don't see age as a problem. 58 is, if anything, on the young side for a Catholic prelate. I don't see marriage as a problem and there could be auxiliary bishops in the structure.

    What is a problem is that this is a take-over. I don't care how small the TAC is, this would be a take-over of the TAC in England. The TAC should apply for a separate ordinariate, which is entirely possible in one territory.


    1. Dear Peter,

      I think the fact is that the numbers throughout the UK at first will be very small. There is no guarantee that Scotland will get an Ordinariate. Under any sensible reading of AC it would suggest that we should have our own Ordinariate. The decision is not ours. The decision will be made by the CDF. Why would the CDF consider setting up an Ordinariate for another small group ?

      The simple fact is that we are all hoping to join the Catholic Church and bring with us some of the great blessings of Anglicanism .If the CDF chooses Keith Newton and there is only one Ordinariate for the UK we will happily accept this as the work of the Holy Spirit. The last thing we need in Scotland is somekind of continuance of the present regime . FiF in England has achieved a great deal. FiF in Scotland has achieved nothing and will achieve nothing under the present structure. I know I am part of the committee.

      I accept that I seem to be in a minority on the age concern. I remain convinced that a single chap who could be consecrated would be better. I am also convinced that this is the time for a break from the past. I think it would be better if the CDF selected someone who has not been part of the inner circle.

      I cannot speak for England but in Scotland our small group are submitting their dosiers to the CDF through Bishop Philip Tartaglia. I imagine the same is happeneing in England through Bishop Hopes. I guess that when they are all in they will be looked at, consultations will be made and decisions taken by those in authority in Rome. Those decisions have not yet been taken.

      Better to view all of this as coming together in unity in the Catholic Church rather than terms like 'takeover'. Any emotions you may have pale in relation to those of us of a different nationally who may be asked to come with a group of foreigners whose past history as oppressors and persecutors is writ large. If it is what God asks of us then we must do it.

      1. Fr Andrew,

        I heard a rumble some time ago that the Ordinariate for England and Wales would in fact be an Ordinariate for the UK at its inception, but would be constructed in such a way that the Scottish part of it could quickly become an independent Ordinariate coterminus with the Scottish CBC when that becomes a viable option. I've not heard this repeated since, so I don't know whether it was an early discussion point which has since been abandoned, or whether it is something which has "legs" so to speak.

  11. I don't see why we should be discussing whether a married Anglican bishop can or can't be an priest-ordinary in the ordinariate. Anglicanorum Coetibus and its norms have set how this could be, and also that they Holy See has given due and proper recognition to past ministries as Anglican bishops to the extent that the priest-ordinaries can wear their mitres, chimeres, rochets and probably their episcopal rings as Anglicans if they do so request. Some Vatican insiders have said that Pope Benedict XVI was willing to grant dispensation for married Anglican bishops to be consecrated as Catholic bishops (at least during the ordinariates' start-up phase). However the Pope had to consider the concerns of the Orthodox, especially the Russian Church. The Roman Church has ecumenical sensitivity in mind. She won't go it alone without getting tacit consent from its sister (and still separated) Churches. But as we have it, Rome wisely stuck to the tradition of an unmarried episcopate. The other Anglican bishops who have joined the ordinariate and have been consecrated priests can assist the ordinary in his duties. In the future, unmarried men from the ranks of the ordinariate's priests will be elected and consecrated bishops.

    As for age qualifications of priest-ordinaries, older men have more experience in managing organizations, as long as their health can allow it. We know of younger men who because of work-related stress have fallen ill, and older men who because of an outlook in life that puts a premium on healthy lifestyle, spirituality and a love for nature and the company of people, are spared from the stresses that cause chronic illness.

    In the Roman Catholic Church one ecclesiastical function has an age cap. This is being able to vote in conclave. Some non-voting Cardinals have complained while they are over 80, they aren't senile at all, so why should they be not allowed to vote?

    As for age

  12. It is not right that these 'reluctant Romans' from the FiF will be running the ordinariate. Nor should there be a separate jurisdiction for the defective Novus Ordo, which is Protestant in spirit and Protestant in effect. As the great Archbishop Lefebvre said so well, it is a Protestant service that turns Catholics into Protestants. Rather, it turns Catholics out of church and into pagans.

    These FiFers don't deserve an ordinariate for 'doing the N.O. with dignity'. Those who actually want the N.O. should simply join the local Latin parishes, and the ordinariate should be for the wonderful Anglican patrimony, meaning a liturgy that at least perpetuates some parts of the prayerbook tradition. It is the Mass that matters, and nothing else but the Mass. The TAC failed to get its liturgical house in order over the last twenty years. Now everyone will pay the price for it. Now there is no TAC litugy approved by Rome. I pray to our Lady that the one submitted last Pentecost will be approved for use; otherwise, the ordinariates themselves have no use.

    If this take-over is to come to pass, we can expect to see this FiF prelate restricting the Mass to the three options currently allowed under A.C. Nobody in England wants a made-in-America A.U. Mass text, and this has the horrid N.O. Offertory in it anyway, complete with its Protestant "spiritual drink". Few in the new ordinariate will want a Latin Mass because they are not used to Latin. That leaves . . . ta da! The Novus Ordo Missæ. What a TOTAL disaster. Bugnini and his man-made liturgy concocted in committee win again. Will the tiny handfull of incoming TAC parishes in England be forced to use one of these three Mass texts?

    So we see that the TAC, which has sacrificed everything because its members WANT to be Latin Catholics, gets kicked in the teeth. Meanwhile, some 'establishment' N.O. Anglicans who don't really want to be Latins enter the Latin Church reluctantly and are rewarded with a jurisdiction. Let's face it: these people would rather be Canterburians, and they get to command those from the TAC who would rather be Romans? The ditherers who stayed out until the last dog was hung get to be the prelates?

    Bishop Mercer is worth more than all three of these FiF bishops put together, and the Pope, at least, knows it. He is a man who knows his mind, and his soul is with Eternal Rome. He is exactly the sort of patriarchal figure who could serve as a good transitional figure for, say, the present TAC vicar-general as a future p.o.

    Next question: Who will head the ordinariates in Canada and Australia? Will it be Bishop Peter Elliott for Australia? May God forfend it. Will it be Bishop Peter Wilkinson for Canada? May God grant it in His mercy.

    Meanwhile, Bishop Bernard Fellay is looking on and wondering. He wonders, If I make a deal with Rome, will I also get kicked in the teeth? Maybe Rome would put the S.S.P.X under some semi-traditionalist like Fr. Fessio or Fr. Zuhlsdorf. There's a thought.

    So I am praying that Bishop Newton is not appointed personal ordinary for England. Let's have someone who would actually prefer to be a member of the Latin Church rather than the Canterburian Rebellion.


    1. I must object to you saying "God forfend Bp Elliott being made the Ordinary for the Australian Ordinariate"! He is an excellent Catholic bishop in every respect – if you could have seen him sing Pontifical Mass last Sunday, and preach a strong sermon against sinister secularism…

      Of course, with all due respect to him, and to Hepworth et al., I would be delighted to see Bp David Robarts become the new Australian Ordinary.

      1. Dear Joshua:

        The sheep should know their shepherd and their shepherd the sheep. Bishop Elliott is a Novus Ordo Latin bishop. He and the TAC do not share the same charism and the same culture and his celebration of a fancy Mass or two will not change that. The TAC did not expect to be put under N.O. bishops, and I pray that they will not be.


  13. Dear Peter,

    Unlike some contributors to this page I dont think that we should restrict our comments to cuddly pathetic agreement with every article. I also dont think that we should put in our shop window opinions which are unhelpful.
    In Scotland we have presented our Scottish Prayer Book and other liturgiical books to Rome through + Tartaglia. In Scotland our Prayer Book is very different and far more Catholic than the English Prayer Book. My congregation use the English Missal for the Mass and the SPB for all other worship.
    I would be upset if we end up being part f a UK Ordinariate . I believe that English people do not understand how strongly the Scots feel about their Kingdom. The only place in the world where the English have a worse historical reputation is Ireland. How successful do you think a new group would be in Ireland if it had written on its sign we are a subset of the English ?
    In saying all this I must end with my firmly held view that in all of this we are looking to the unity of the Catholic Church. It would stick in my gullet if the price we are asked to pay for the Ordinafriate in Scotland is to be part of a group headed up by an Englishman and run from England then so be it. The only worse scenario would be an English Ordinariate with the existing leadership in FiF Scotland given some sort of sop title as Scottish Dean of the Ordinariate. That would kill it before it started.

  14. Oh well – it looks as if the die is cast. I shall be sorry to lose the episcopal oversight and friendship of Bishop Andrew, but I wish all those joining his caravan well. Let's hope for a worthy successor to him to minister to those of us for whom crossing the Tiber is not an option.

  15. So far all this is speculation. It would be best if we all wait and see what the Holy Father decides. As I recall the Ordinary can be a priest. There are some very good priests who might be the better choice.

    We must let go and let God take care of who shall be Ordinaries, I am sure that His choices will be the right ones.

    I also wasn't aware of the hostility between the countries within the United Kingdom. It should be remembed that we are all one and there are probably some Anglicans or former Anglicans, now Catholic who have communication with the Holy Father over these issues.

    Let us ask the Holy Spirit to give us peace during these anxious times.

    1. Why do you imagine Scotland has its own government and that government is run by the Nationalists who are in favour of separating the Union ?

      It is all very nice to hold up the banner we are all Catholics. Not realistic in this instance. If the Ordinariate in Scotland is in any way associated with being English it will give those of us within it a really tough job to properly act in mission to the Scots and to bring more Episcopalians back to the faith.

      1. Aren't most of the Catholics in Scotland actually Irish (pace the Highlanders . . . they came from Ireland earlier as Scots to defeat the Picts)?

    2. Well, under Section 1 of Article 1 of S.P., each ordinariate is confined to the territory of an episcopal conference. Since Scotland has its own separate episcopal conference, it follows logically that it must have its own ordinariate or no ordinariate at all, and that the English one cannot extend to Scotland. Of course, however, if we follow this principle to the letter, the TAC body in Central America, which has four parishes in four episcopal conferenes, cannot exist either. Similar problems arise in the case of New Zealand, Japan, Puerto Rico, Mozambique, and so forth.

      I am more concerned with the idea of putting traditionalist Anglicans from the T.T.A.C. (TAC body) under a FiF ordinary. The FiF is a neo-conservative group which worships according to the Novus Ordo. The T.T.A.C. is a truly Anglo-Catholic group which prefers liturgy worthy of the name and has an Anglican patrimony to pass down. It seems wrong to me to put the T.T.A.C. under a FiF prelate who would rather be a Canterburian and is only accepting the Pope's offer as a last resort.


      1. What you say about FiF is not accurate. I do not use the N.O. I know many priest members of FiF in England who like me do not use N.O. There is not one priest in the Scottish Group who regularly uses this liturgy. We are all members of FiF.

        I dont know Keith Newton that well but on the few occasions I have met him he has struck me as a good and prayerful man. That said I would still rather see a single chap .

        1. Dear Fr. Crosbie:

          I was not referring to the incomers from Scotland and I hope they get their own p.o. The fewer people who are under these new reluctant Catholics from FiF, the better.

          I was referring to the FiF in England, which mostly does use the N.O. Those who want the N.O. can simply go to the local territorial Latin parish for it. There should not be ordinariates for former Anglicans who mostly use the N.O. with some Morning Prayer and Evensong thrown in for good measure.

          Again, the T.T.A.C. (TAC in England) should apply for its own separate ordinariate. If the Torres Strait can have a separate one in Australia, so can the TAC in England. Real Anglican traditionalists should not be put under N.O. neo-cons from FiF. This would not be good.


    3. Any hostility between the English and Scotch is (in my experience) all one way. As for the Scottish Prayer Book, it would be a welcome side-effect if we were allowed to use it in England.

      1. "Any hostility between the English and Scotch is (in my experience) all one way."

        Hear hear!

        (in my plebby estuary Scots accent)

        The Scots inherited England, not the English, Scotland. The founding stone of Durham Cathedral was laid by Malcolm on a slow day during a raiding tour. The Scots had English slaves 😀

        Wade was an Irishman, and as I recall the Highlands were pacified, or at least kept pacified, by means of locally recruited troops. The Lowlands (don't know about the Far West of them, mind you) didn't exactly identify with the Highlanders!

        The Poles don't boo the Germans or the Russians at sporting events, and it's reasonable to say that they suffered more from both those nations than the Scots ever suffered from the English.

  16. It seems that Ruth Gledhill broke this story, but because of the Murdoch paywall she's hardly getting any credit. One of the many downsides of a paywall internet!

  17. There are, broadly speaking, two constituencies in FIF/UK, looked at from the prospective of "the Roman option:" those who would only reluctantly go to Rome (if at all; there is an emergent "with a Code of Practice we shall make do;" cf. the refrain at their 2009 assembly "a Code of Practice will not do" — and also cf. the emergence of the "Society of St. Wilfrid and St. Hilda"), and those who are eager to. The latter (who include 3 of the 4 PEVs — including +Fulham with the PEVs) view Anglicanorum Coetibus as having transformed the situation by providing a means for "Anglican groups" corporately to "return home to Rome." Why else do you think these men are going now, when it seems possible, even probable, that the results of the recent elections of members of the House of Clergy and House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England, means that the current legislation to allow woman bishops will fail to get the requisite two-thirds majority in the House of Laity in 2012, and so it will fail (only to come back in five years' time with even fewer fig-leaf "breeches" for the benefit of conservative opponents)?

    A friend wrote me recently, putting succinctly a point-of-view expressed on this thread:

    "The secret meetings in Rome were obviously a patch-up job to get rid of Abp Hepworth, because Rome was in to much of a hurry to get it out. There seemed to be a lot of coincidences between the text of the Apostolic Constitution and the Portsmouth letter. The whole thing had to be re-engineered for the English PEV’s, so that is what has happened. Unlike what Kasper said, the TAC was on the train first, then got kicked off at the first station, the others got aboard, and now the TAC is expected to run after the train."

    but I think that Rome's vision, and especially Pope Benedict's, has always been focussed primarily, for good or for ill, on the English — and by that I mean Church of England and FIF/UK. (Note that I wrote "primarily.")

    1. Pope Benedict's, has always been focussed primarily, for good or for ill, on the English .

      If you are correct then let us hope that the English respond generously to this gracious development. By that I mean in decent numbers and with decent support from the laity.

    2. The letter you quote, Dr Tighe, echoes some of my thoughts about the present situation of the Traditional Anglican Communion. Alas, I know little about it and have never experienced its worship. I believe that in England it is quite insignificant. But they began this process and it would be unjust to 'kick them off" at this or any stage.

      In comparison with England, they have had long experience of working independently of mainstream Anglicanism and their experience in this regard would be invaluable. I realise there is the problem with Bishop Hepworth as an apostate Catholic priest, twice married, once divorced, and there is matriomonial mayhem among many clerics and laity in the TAC, all of which would have to be regularised. I also remember an American TAC bishop saying on a Forward in Faith podcast that an Ordinariate would be unwelcome in the United States because so many divorced Catholics have joined the TAC and none would welcome facing the difficulties of receiving Holy Communion should this come into being. The future seems to be a canonical nightmare on many fronts.

      But in contrast to this state of affairs, England has had no positive experience of maintaining an Anglican split of any consequence, and most of us would be hardput to know where their places of worship are to be found. A friend told me that they have St Agatha's, Portsea, and a church in Whitby, but do they belong to the same splits? I wish I knew more about them. England is also not used to paying for their clergy and churches in the way that Catholics and Noncoformists are and the financial situation is an unknown quantity. Presumably the TAC abroad has solved this problem?

      Personally, I think it would have been better to have started in Australia, Bishop Hepworth or no Bishop Hepworth. And is it true that some bishops, clergy and laity in the TAC in the United States have voted against joining an Ordinariate? These are only random thoughts based on no firm knowledge, but the situation seems full of imponderables. I am praying that a clear way forward satisfactory to all will be found.

  18. I believe that English people do not understand how strongly the Scots feel about their Kingdom. The only place in the world where the English have a worse historical reputation is Ireland.

    I think you are wrong Father.

      1. Well, this discussion certainly beats having the usual arguments over which liturgy to use.

        But truce with commotions,
        And new-fangled notions,
        A bumper, I trust you'll allow;
        Here's George our good king,
        And Charlotte his queen,
        And lang may they ring as they dow, dow, dow,
        And lang may they ring as they dow.

        1. Sorry folks about the last comment. It should have read . Then name the place Father. I managed to drop half a mug of tea into my keyboard. I do not recommend this . I think I will need a new keyboard.

  19. Well, it's nice to see the spirit of Anglicanism alive and well here. The Ordinariates have not even started up properly and already everyone is bickering and fighting and descending in factionalism!

    What must the good Lord in heaven be thinking. His people talk of faith yet instead of displaying faith in Him, in what He has planned for His church, in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, you can't wait to knock it down!

    I give up. Dear God, not our will but Your will be done.

    1. If you think this Anglican disputatiousness is bad, try Orthodoxy. And of these disagreements here it can be said, as is true of the Orthodox, that at least we are not quarrelling about doctrine.

    1. Many thanks Father. By luck the weather in SW1 today is bad enough to justify putting on the heating. Tis early in the winter for a Scot to be putting on the heating but I will focus on not having to buy a new keyboard for the desktop.

  20. Having paddled my way across the Tiber some 30 years ago. I'd say come on in the water is warm and healing. Welcome to our new brethren.

Leave a Reply