How's it going down?

It's been a while since I posted on the Anglo-Catholic; the reason was simple. In the early days, I wanted to do what I could to encourage those of you still on the Canterbury side of the Tiber and reassure those of you on the Roman one. Once things had reached a certain momentum, then my task seemed, well, redundant. Things were well under way.

But now that we are some months into the Ordinariate scheme in the United Kingdom, I wondered whether it might be useful to those of you in other lands if I reported on how the Ordinariate has gone down with the Catholic Church on the ground.

The answer is simple: there is almost nothing to report. And that is excellent news. When the first waves of Tibernauts arrived after the 1992 vote on women priests in Synod, there was a great deal of speculation and some ignorant hostility to the newcomers. Within a few years, all these attitudes were laid to rest, and those who are now priests (many with wives) have taken their place among the diocesan presbyteria and have simply become welcome members of the family. I think that this initial wave has smoothed the way for the Ordinariate; I have yet to encounter a hostile comment from anyone who matters.

There is a certain amount of curiosity, yes, but as far as my brethren are concerned, the new Ordinariate clergy are simply Catholic priests with their own structure. End of story. We are accustomed to religious orders running parishes; this would appear to be similar, and though among ourselves we have concerns about the thoroughness of the theological education of some, this is something that will, no doubt, be a decreasing problem as seminarians are put through a more rigorous preparation than they would have received in an Anglican theological college. And they will certainly not be fobbed off with a correspondence course.

If you would like evidence of this rapid integration, you might consider the fact that the Reverend Deacon James Bradley of the Ordinariate was asked to sing the Gospel in Madrid in the presence of His Holiness, during the youth gatherings there only a day or two ago. There is no fuss; he is simply a Catholic.

And that, in my experience, has been the tenor of things. Some laity have expressed anxieties, but a little information has been enough to reassure them.

Credit must be given to Mgr Newton, the Ordinary and his fellow leaders. By a careful avoidance of a sort of Anglican triumphalism, by keeping things low-key, the Anglican life-raft has tied up against the barque of Peter almost without a bump.

But what of these people's Anglicanism? Is it still intact? This is an important question, and one that ought to be left to them. I am not qualified to put words into their mouths, but I would be interested to learn (perhaps from some contributor to this blog) what positive steps they are taking in order to secure their Anglican Patrimony now. Until the new liturgy is ready, they are, of course, using the Roman Rite (Ordinary Form, I suppose). Maybe things will become clearer once they have their own rite. I do hope that it is more than hymns and very long intercessions…

Author: Fr. Seán Finnegan

Born in 1961, Fr. Seán Finnegan studied at the University of St. Andrews and St. John’s Seminary, Wonersh, England. He was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton on September 24, 1989 where he has spent the majority of his priesthood, apart from a few years in the Oratories of Oxford and London. He is presently the Parish Priest of the Parish of Our Lady, Queen of Peace, Adur Valley, which is on the South Coast of England, not far from Brighton. Fr. Finnegan is the author of the exceptional blog Valle Adurni (the ancient Roman name for Shoreham, the main town of Fr. Finnegan’s parish, is supposed to have been Portus Adurni). He also teaches Early Church History at St. John’s Seminary.

37 thoughts on “How's it going down?”

  1. In the early days of this weblog, encouragement was given to those who had experienced tasteful usage of the ordinary form of the mass to make comment regarding the same. Fr. Finnegan here suggests that the ordinary form is the norm for worship in the ordinariate in England.

    I am happy to say that, during a marathon road trip that ran the length of the western coast of these united States this summer, from California to Washington and back again, my wife and I were happy to experience a gamut of masses in sundry Catholic parishes. The old, Spanish missions are hauntingly simple, yet elegant. The new Spanish parishes with their masses of Mexicans are quite lively. But, for us, it was one particular mass, in a little town far north, and hard by the San Juan de Fuca Strait (Wash.), that was most impressive. It was done so reverentially and so elegantly, that the manner of its execution lifted heart and soul toward heaven. The architecture of the building was nothing to write home about. The acoustics were not conducive to music, but the cantor and his musical selections were superb. The priest was an African whose use of English forced one to close eyes and cup ears to hear and understand, but his measured and pious pace invited the worshipper into true worship. THAT mass at THAT parish was one that induced a person to wish, "If I could only find a job in this town I would become a member here!…"

    We Anglicans who are Rome bound will, God willing, have an elegant mass which is set in traditional English with traditional Anglican music. But, whether it is traditional English or contemporary English, whether older Anglican style or newer Roman style, the mass can be done reverently and elegantly. The parish that my wife and I visited in northern Washington proved it. The key to the issue, it seems to me, is not so much the quaintness of the language that we use in worship, or the age of the music that we sing, but rather the attitude of soul, and the sensibilities of heart of the priest and of the worshippers of his parish.

  2. Yes, you're right that Newton et al kept things low-key. So low-key in fact that they managed to make off with a million quid. We'd be most grateful for the money – given by Anglicans for the use of Anglican churches – back.

    1. Now here we have an interesting comment. In your view, Tom, then, it is not possible to be an Anglican in communion with Rome. Doesn't that rather make a nonsense of the whole Anglo-Catholic movement? The end of the Anglo-Cathollic movement, surely, is the unity of the Catholic world, 'united but not absorbed'. No doubt those in the Ordinariate continue to think of themselves as 'Anglican'; only, in union with the Holy See. And if they are Anglican, and in Anglican churches, where is your objection?

      1. It is not my view that Anglicans can't be in communion in Rome – that is Rome's view. I have also failed to see evidence of the Anglican patrimony being maintained. Based on a cursory glance of the ordinariate websites it seems that already many ordinariate groups have already been absorbed into the local Roman congregation and those which do have distinct worship times are merely using the Roman rite. To be Anglican but in communion with the Holy See would be wonderful but i see little evidence of that actually occurring.

        1. I think we need a little evidence for these assertions. Rome has clearly encouraged the preservation of the Anglican Patrimony among the Ordinariates. What do you mean by 'absorbed'? Ordinariate Catholics may worship at a 'normal' parish in the same way that a Ruthenian-Rite Catholic may do so if there is no local availability of their own rite. And as for the use of the Roman Rite, you know perfectly well that an Anglican Use Missal is in preparation, and what do you expect the people to use in the meantime? Common Worship?

          1. Amazing how anti-Roman some Anglo Catholics have been revealed to be! I am sure a very large proportion of those who donated to the CBS in the past would have warmly accepted the Holy Father's offer in Anglicanorum coetibus. Strange that so many have reacted so coldly.

      2. Father,

        I take your point, but if these are Anglican churches, and I'm an Anglican, then I'd assume I would be welcome to receive Holy Communion in them. Is that the case? If so, I have no objection.

          1. Just so, Dr Tighe. Thus demonstrating that Fr Finnegan's response was disingenuous, and such evidence will hopefully assist the Charity Commission to correctly decide in favor of the funds being returned.

            As to your other point, it would be absurd to subscribe to the notion that every Clementine lives and breathes to echo the words of the Rev'd Canon Reid. Do you actually believe that? May we then also assume that you slavishly adhere to every position taken by Dr Helm and Dr Ridner at Muhlenberg? Do you expect your acolyte Mr Beeler to slavishly adhere to every position taken by you?

            1. For the information of interested readers, whom I advise to peruse the article I linked from the "reid andwrite" blog above:

              A couple of comments:

              (1) Mr. Reid is the Rector of St. Clement's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a church that for many years was one of the few, perhaps the only, parish in the Episcopal Church that was explicitly and openly "Anglo-Papalist" in its theological orientation. Eheu, fugaces. Mr. Reid himself lived for a time in the fourth-floor flat of the presbytery of St. Mary's, Bourne Street, London, in which the late Man-of-God Eric Mascall lived for a quarter-century while Professor of Historical Theology at the University of London and in retirement, before illness and debility necessitated his move to a nursing home in 1987. (I recall with fondness and gratitude my many visits to Mascall there over the years 1978 to 1986.)

              A friend acquainted with St Clements has written to me as follows (excerpted):

              "(Reid has had) No problem intellectually going along with the changes (he wouldn't have had a career in Britain otherwise, and IIRC he blogged a picture of himself vested at a concelebration with women in Chicago for Bishop Montgomery's birthday: who'd have thought the rector of St Clement's would do that?). (…) being willing to play along with the old rite out of nostalgia fit St Clement's perfectly. After all it's an Episcopal church. It's gay theatre.

              At St Clement's even before Anglicanorum coetibus he's had the effect of pushing out the 'real Catholics' who want to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, including some of the gays. Most of them have recongregated at St Paul's in South Philly, serving the Tridentine Masses there. Predictably, staying at Clem's with Reid and the Episcopalians are the unrepentant gays …"

              (2) There is a certain degree of truth to this claim of Mr. Reid, though:

              "It seems to me that the Chinese Catholic church is at the very stage where the English Catholic Church was in the 16th century, thoroughly fed up with interference in its life by the Bishop of Rome. The Chinese Church leaders are ignoring Rome and choosing Bishops of their own (and being encouraged in this by the Chinese Government), while remaining Catholic Christians. That would have sounded familiar to Archbishop Cranmer!"

              although not much, I mean insofar as there is a parallel between the "Cranmerists" and the "Communists." First, we have the lying implication that what has been happening in China comes from the Chinese Catholic Church being "fed up" with "interference" by the Pope, and of its own volition "ignoring Rome" with the "encouragement" of the government. In fact, the parallel is otherwise: the ChiCom regime, like Henry's regime in the 1530s, forced a schism upon an unwilling Church and people, executing bishops and prominent clerical opponents of the schism, and replacing them by thoroughly compromised characters (like Abp Cranmer and Abp Browne of Dublin, both of them secretly married, like so many of the ChiCom-toadying bishops), some of whom had to conceal what by objective and accepted Catholic standards were heretical beliefs. That "a man of the cloth," indeed a person of any integrity whatsoever, could write three sentences so redolent of falsehood and malice seems to betoken a sad darkening of both the mind and the soul.

  3. £1m will not go far these days, given the financial need of the British Ordinariate. Presumably 'Tom' is referring to the large subvention from the accumulated funds of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. This capital was built up over many years largely from legacies left by people who had prayed for reunion with the Apostolic See for much of their lives. Financially, the Confraternity had little to spend its money on as its objectives had long been achieved. Irrespective of what individual Anglicans, clerical or lay, believe, reservation is now usual in many Anglican churches, bar the Evangelical, vestments are worn as a matter of course, detached from any sound doctrinal conviction. There is no longer any need for 'tabernacle treasuries' or grants for vesture. The objects of an Ordinariate are entirely consistent with the Confraternity's aims. Anglo-Catholic devotional societies possess enormous capital which they can hardly use for their original purposes but merely sit on. It would be a fundamental breach with their origins to use it for general Anglican purposes inimical to their foundation. The Ordinariate is a far more deserving cause.

    1. The fundamental aim of the aim of the CBS is further Anglican devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, but they have given way over half of their assets to a group from whom no Anglican is ever allowed to receive that same sacrament. I think you're fundamentally mistaken to state that Anglo-Catholic are unable to fulfil their original function, but in the extreme event when that may be the case then that doesn't give right to do what they want with the money.

      1. The money from the CBS I regard as a very small down payment on what real Anglo Catholics are owed by the cabal of "affirming" liberals who took over the majority of the formerly Catholic parishes, colleges, and orders and then proceeded to gut them of orthodoxy (and often close them altogether). More should have been snatched from their sticky hands while the going was good — for it appears they are unable to generate their own funds or institutions. Parasites that kill the host, so to speak.

        1. A nicely self-serving false dichotomy. So the only "real" Anglo-Catholics are those who are joining the ordinariate, and all the others are "affirming" liberals? Got news for you, Austin: there are plenty of us who are neither AffCaths nor ordinariate-bound, and intend to remain teaching the Catholic faith within the Anglican Church.

          Good to see you admit, though, that the money was "snatched … while the going was good." Hopefully the Charity Commissioners will come to the same conclusion.

          1. "Hopefully the Charity Commissioners will come to the same conclusion"

            But Father, do you really hope that the money will be given back to the CBS? If so, the Ordinariate will lose most of its available funds, and what will happens to its Priests and their families? What about the Tomlinsons (Mrs. Tomlinson is pregnant with baby Tomlinson N. 3)? What about the Hellyers and their 9 children? The Church of England doesn't really need this money, for its Priests will continue to be paid whatever happens… But the ordinariate needs it. Would you remove back the food from the mouths of large families with many small children? Or perhaps you do believe they deserve to be deprived of all their livelihoods for having left the CofE??
            Please, we don't need ECUSA-style litigation in United Kingdom, nor any equivalent of Mrs. Katharine Jefferts-Stalin here…

            1. Sorry, Henri, but whatever the good motives, or the grave material wants that one seeks to alleviate, theft (if that is what in the end it is deemed to be) is still theft. Surely a better a way can be found of meeting people's needs than by unilateral alienation of the majority of a charity's assets? My impression is that many Anglo-Catholic bodies would have been well-disposed to helping those of their number who had joined the ordinariate, but the CBS business has so soured the atmosphere that such co-operation is looking increasingly unlikely. (Which should be a matter of concern to us for other than merely financial reasons.)

              No, we certainly don't want ECUSA-style litigation over here. But it was the CBS trustees who had joined the ordinariate who were first to deploy the lawyers, and who made sure that their legal team were present at the recent meeting of the Council-General to ensure the "smooth running" (no awkward questions etc.) of the proceedings.

            2. Exactly how does that line of reasoning differ from that adopted by the looters in the recent riots?

              Though you paint a heartbreaking picture of the CofE snatching food away from the starving, it is an analogy that hardly works when you consider that this is the Roman Catholic Church we are talking about! It's wealth far exceeds the CofE. Perhaps rather than looking back angrily over your shoulder you should instead start to question why your new home doesn't see fit to provide sufficient financial support.

            3. To Tom: Probably because the RC Church isn't by Law established… and so relies only on the old widow's mite to provide for its clergy.

            4. What does being established have to do with the anything? The widows mite supports the CofE just as much as it supports the RCC.

            5. Henri: "By law established" does not mean "By government funded". (A very common misunderstanding, but an error none the less.)

          2. "… there are plenty of us who are neither AffCaths nor ordinariate-bound, and intend to remain teaching the Catholic faith within the Anglican Church."

            And so you are willing to descend from "a code of practice will not do" to "making do" with priestesses and flaminicas? A funny sort of "catholicism" that can swallow these things — unless your example of "catholicism" will be modelled on the Church of Sweden, in which case you may well make your own epitaph that which appears on so many medieval tomb-inscriptions, "Sum quod eris."

            1. And so you are willing to descend from "a code of practice will not do" to "making do" with priestesses and flaminicas?

              Dr Tighe, with all respect – and I generally look forward to your contributions on numerous blogs – you do have a tendency to put words into other people's mouths. What absurdities, if any, I and my brother priests are willing to "swallow" is a matter whereof you can only conjecture, and which certainly does not follow from what I have written.

          3. Not liberal, but not Catholic. You can't teach the Catholic faith in the Church of England if the shepherd of that faith has previously reached out to you to propose the way back into the flock. That's just not a Catholic way of thinking.

          4. I think those remaining who expect to be faithful Catholics in the CoE are delusional and doomed to ignominious defeat, though I bear them no ill will at all.

            I detect very considerable ill will directed at those who have joined the ordinariate from their erstwhile friends and allies. Most of which I put down to bad conscience.

            Really, compared to the buildings, institutions, and benefits the ordinariate has left behind, a measly million pounds is pretty insignificant. If there were any charity in those who continue to revel among the fleshpots of Egypt, they would give the ordinariate the rest of the stash and best wishes. It would be a wise insurance policy for the near future.

  4. For the record, the donation by the the Trustees of the CBS was made only after the Trustees had received legal advice to the effect that the donation was one which the Trustees could lawfully make.

    A CofE clergyman made a complaint about this to the Charities Commission which is considering the complaint. That same clergyman has brought so many suits against various CofE bodies that our civil courts have declared him a "vexatious litigant" – that is to say he is restrained from commencing any further proceedings without the prior permission of the Court.

    As a matter of passing interest the outcome of one of those suits, was a judicial decision that the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine was not any instance of the the CofE, such as its bishops or synods, but Parliament – the consequence of the CofE being "the church by law established".

    Thus Tom's remark above is grossly defamatory of Monsignor Newton. I'm all for freedom of speech, but defamation seems to me to be an abuse of the hospitality of this excellent blog.

    1. As we have seen in the recent farce regarding the Church Union, legal advice can be a rather fickle thing and we can be inclined to only listen to advice which conform to our predilections. The clergyman you make reference is by no means the only one to have a complaint to the charity commission and I understand they are treating the investigation as a matter of urgency. I'm sorry if you find my comments offensive but this a whole affair has a rather insidious odour to it – including dates of crucial meetings being changed, constituions being altered, conflict of interest etc.

      I think it's important that the ordinariate is fruitful and in the long run should enrich both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Church, but i fear that if this rather nasty issue is unresolved then it will forever leave a cloud over relationships.

      1. Having regard to Tom's comments, visitors to this site may find it useful to read what the CBS itself has had to say in response to such accusations. Their answers may be found at:-

        In my opinion the donation falls clearly within the terms of paragraphs 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 of its objectives as set out in answer to Question 16 of the CBS response, which objectives they state have remained unchanged since 1999, which, of course, predates the Holy Father's initiative by some ten years.

    2. Tom makes valid points, and I think it entirely improper to accuse him of defamation. For those of us still in the CofE who have friends and valued former colleagues in the Ordinariate, it is distressing to see how rapidly (if predictably) things have degenerated into a squabble about money. No doubt the Charities Commission will in due time rule on the legality or otherwise of this transfer of assets; but the manner in which it has been done (which people here may not be aware of), much more than the fact of the transfer itself, leaves a very unpleasant taste in the mouth and augurs ill for a constructive future relationship between Anglican and former-Anglican Catholics.

      1. Tom has a opinion. The Trustees proceeded on advice. Should the courts ultimately decide otherwise, no doubt the the situation will be remedied.

        In the case of the Church Union, Father Barnes has resigned his office and I expect other Ordinariate clergy will follow his example.

        Still, I suppose many of those protesting will be quite content to remain in the CofE and work alongside purported priestesses, purported female bishops and, presumably with purported bishops in "caring gay and lesbian relationships" as the Presiding Bishop of the US Episcopal Church has recently said. No doubt further violence to the pale shadow of orthodox catholic belief that remains in the Anglican Communion will follow.

        I was watching the BBC Promenade concert, this evening. The Verdi Requiem. As always, Verdi's setting of the medieval Latin Dies Irae sent shivers down my spine, so vivid is the description of the day of judgment.

        It struck me just how onerous is the great decision Anglican clergy must now make.

  5. Well! This discussion has strayed well beyond what I intended, and I apologise to any of you who may have been annoyed or otherwise distressed. My intention was to write some helpful things, and somehow a matter has been aired which has caused considerable heat and not much light.
    However, it seems to me that some airing of this subject is necessary, and had to happen somewhere. Clearly there are strong feelings, but I don't see them being resolved here. From what I read, the matter is under examination and will be settled by other bodies. That is all we can say.
    It's all a bit like quarrelling over a will, isn't it? Close family members can end up enemies over money. Please don't let that happen.

    It seems that some comments are referred to me for approval, others just find their way onto the blog without it. I really think we should stop now, so I won't put up any more comments that I am asked to moderate. One comment I really have had to block because though it made some good points, it also wrote things that lawyers might have taken an interest in. Let's all just let it rest now.

  6. Fr Sean,

    Well – now you know how poor old Damian at the Telegraph must feel as his interesting blogs are hijacked by trolls within about 2 minutes of appearing.

    You asked for some views on 'how's it going?' – and instead got a lot ot spam about what many would consider to be unrelated issues. If 'Tom' and followers wish to have a discussion about the CBS, why not start one? Why hijack another strand?

    It has exposed a raw anti-Roman nerve-ending though – which is perhaps odd in those who otherwise describe themselves as Anglo-Catholics.

  7. Hear, hear John. Let's regain the momentum.

    As to how it's going, it is of course very early days, however it is becoming clear that Ordinariate groups will need their own space quite soon. That's nothing to do with a lack of a warm welcome. The simple fact is that most Catholic parish churches in major towns and cities are very busy and Ordinariate groups have to grab a Mass time when they can get it.

    It seems that Ordinariate priests being appointed diocesan parish priests is an increasing phenomenon. The way that these two ministries interact (to a diocesan parish on the one hand and to an Ordinariate group on the other) will be interesting. Use of the Roman Rite but with careful attention to ars celebrandi could be a fruitful mutual enrichment for both diocesan and Ordinariate Catholics. Diocesan Catholics will be getting used to Ordinariate priests in a similar way to, say, a Benedictine priest running a parish. In many ways that's a helpful analogy.

    There is something of a "Swiss cheese" effect, however, where no or few priests from large and prominent Anglo Catholic parishes in towns and cities have come over to the Ordinariate. I don't think it is a good idea to speculate about the reasons for that just yet, because it may well change in future.

    In all, the general mood appears to be one of happiness and confidence. In fact, as Father Finnegan suggests it seems to be 'business as usual' getting on with the practical aspects of parish life.

    The generosity shown by diocesan Catholics needs also to be mentioned. Help and assistance has been there from day one and the warmth of spirit has no doubt made the landing a very comfortable one.

    Aside from some quite sharp words from certain quarters, the general mood towards the Ordinariate from the CofE seems to me to be actually more one of curiosity and inquisitiveness than daggers at dawn. Obviously, there are exceptions to that, but it bodes for a peaceable existence in future, which can only be good.

  8. I agree with what Mike says. Some complementary observations.

    The choice of Bishop Alan Hopes as the delegate of the Bishop's Conference for Ordinariate matters seems to have been particularly fruitful. The Bishop attended an Anglican theological colleges, was ordained in the CofE in 1968 and remained an Anglican clergyman until his reception into the Catholic Church in 1994. He was therefore particularly well placed to act as the interface between the Catholic Bishops and the Ordinariate. Likewise a number of groups have been found places of worship in churches where the parish priest is also a former Anglican.

    It is correct that a number of diocesan appointments have been made which will come into effect this autumn. This helps with the existing problem of a clergy shortage – which is only going to get worse because the intake to seminaries is not matching the rate of retirements. It also helps to solve a part of the housing problem for ordiariate clergy with families. The dioceses have been very supportive in this regard.

    Yes there is some bad feeling going beyond the "sweet sorrow" of a parting of the ways. Many of the remaining congregations in the CofE parishes are having to face up to the sad fact that they have lost a significant number of the most active members of their congregations – which creates a financial problem for those who remain and also for the CofE dioceses which had in some measure grown accustomed to these parishes subsidising less successful parishes. And the changes such parishes may have to endure are not only financial. There appears to be pressure on such parishes in many other ways during the inevitable interregnum.

    On the other hand, a lay Ordinariate membership of only 1,000 or so scattered throughout the country cannot support on their own the numbers of the clergy – let alone the cost of financing new church buildings. The CofE has loads of redundant churches – in the wrong places – and the Catholic Church is also amalgamating parishes into "pastoral areas" and closing churches as part of facing up to the declining number of priests available to serve them.

    I have high hopes for the Ordinariate liturgy. It it is as well crafted as I hope, I think it many well become very popular with all Catholics. If so, parishes will be very keen to have an Ordinariate Group and priest attached to their parishes – parish priests well know the importance of "putting bums on pews". In other words the Ordinariate is as much about Mission as anything else.

    Yes, there is an inevitable "clique" of CofE clergy who are more attached to the accidentals of Catholicity than to the fundamentals: Those who ape Catholic forms of service, church decoration, vestments and even clerical garb outside of the sanctuary – but who are not prepared to heed Catholic teaching on matters of faith, morals or discipline. Aesthetics before dogma, if you will. In a way it is a pity that there is no trademark for the word "Catholic"

    One of the biggest future problems for the Ordinariate as part of the universal Church may well be that of being absolutely rigorous about their assessment of the suitability of such persons for ministry should they ever apply.

  9. What we still await with bated breath is any sign of life from the SSWSH. A couple of swashbuckling initial statements and then silence. Those who think it is possible to be a Catholic without the Pope, yet adhering to Papal dogma and Papal moral theology, may bluster away – but their hopes appear to be as forlorn as Good Queen Mary's pregnancy. Meanwhile the Second Wave are girding up their loins.

    1. I spoke a couple of months ago with a person involved in the genesis of SSWSH, a man whose name would be instantly recognizable. In the course of our conversation (which touched on SSWSH only tangentally) he told me that he gave SSWSH "about a 30% chance" of obtaining acceptable safeguards for those of what has been termed "the orginal integrity" or "the orthodox integrity" within the Church of England.

      And then what?

Leave a Reply