* * *

How would you define an Anglo-Catholic?

The Church of England contains many varieties of Christians. Those who are nearer to the Catholic understanding of Scripture, Tradition and the Church, and who express this in their language (speaking, for instance, of the Altar, rather than the Holy Table) and their practice (celebrating the Eucharist regularly and frequently, in many churches not simply every week, but every day) would be called ‘Anglo-Catholic’.

You have been an Anglican bishop for the past fifteen years. What has been your role as a ‘flying bishop’?

In 1992 the central Council of our Church, the General Synod, decided that women might be ordained to the priesthood. In doing so it also said that those who did not accept this innovation must have provision made for them to enable them to continue as faithful Anglicans. For this purpose each Archbishop (there are two in England) consecrated one or two bishops, themselves opposed to women’s ordination, to minister to individuals and congregations who voted to ask for such extra provision. They were suffragans of the Archbishops, and so known as Provincial Episcopal Visitors (PEV’s) or, colloquially, ‘flying bishops’. My remit, for six years from 1995-2001, was to travel the length and breadth of the Eastern half of the Canterbury Province. I was consecrated to the See of Richborough – a title taken from the site where St Augustine set foot in England on his mission from Pope Gregory. On my retirement I became simply a super-numerary and honorary bishop in the diocese where I live, Winchester. My successor as Bishop of Richborough is Bishop Keith Newton.

Did the creation by Pope Benedict XVI of new Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans who wish to enter full communion with the Catholic Church come as a surprise for you?

The Holy Father’s initiative, directed at Groups of Anglicans, came as a great and very welcome surprise.

Many people ask “why now?” If Anglo-Catholics wish to seek communion with the See of Rome, why have they waited until now? Is it just a matter of women bishops or something deeper?

Many of us have believed that the Church of England was moving, for the past century at least, in an ever more catholic direction. With the international conversations between the Anglican Communion and Rome (the ARCIC Conversations) we believed and hoped there would be corporate reunion for us in our lifetime. Since the ordination of women to the priesthood, and now the likelihood of their consecration as bishops, that has faded as an impossible dream.

What are the main elements of the Anglican Patrimony you would like the Ordinariates to preserve?

Our fathers in the faith spoke of “reserve” in matters of faith. That is, a sort of quiet and simple spirit in the best of Anglican use. It has seemed to me a religious voice, a tone, in keeping with our national character. The language of our Prayer Book which introduced the vernacular into our worship five centuries ago seems to catch something of this plain, undemonstrative but deeply felt religious sensibility. But in truth, I think we cannot discover our Patrimony until we see it in a completely Catholic context.

Do you expect the Anglican Ordinariates to attract many people in England and Wales? Will whole parishes take the plunge?

It is difficult at present to see how it will be possible for entire parishes to join the Ordinariate, simply because the Church of England is very territorial, and will not readily part with, for instance, its buildings. For all that, there are several priests I know who are preparing their congregations, and who will take the first opportunity of belonging whether they can retain their parish churches or not.

Do you believe some Anglican Bishops will enter the Ordinariates? Are you personally planning to avail yourself of this opportunity?

Certainly I know of several Bishops who are exploring the possibility, as I am myself. I can see no other future for catholics in the Church of England than this.

Would you be willing to seek ordination in the Roman Catholic Church? Would you consider ordination or whatever your role is in the Ordinariate a denial of your pastoral work in the Anglican Communion or rather a culmination of that work?

Because the Holy Father’s appeal is to Groups of Anglicans, I believe my personal future is unimportant compared with what is offered to us all. If it is decided that my ministry can continue, and that I may be ordained a Priest in the Catholic Church, then I should be delighted – but I should join the Ordinariate unconditionally, and let others decide whether there might still be something for me to undertake. I am sure that the simple fact of joining the Ordinariate will be the crown and completion of my ministry up to this point.

What are the main difficulties you envisage in this adventure, both for yourself and for most Anglo-Catholics? Will the need to accept the faith of the Roman Catholic Church as proclaimed by the Catechism be an obstacle for many Anglo-Catholics?

I think for some Anglicans there are stumbling blocks within the Catechism. We have been separated from the Catholic mainstream for five hundred years, and there have been developments in doctrine with which we are unfamiliar. As a frequent visitor to Fatima, I have no difficulty with the Marian dogmas. There was a time when I found it hard to accept the Immaculate Conception (for I did not properly understand it) and Papal Infallibility. Others may still find these to be difficulties for them – I do not. And I hope and believe the Church will be very understanding and patient in explaining these matters. Far more important for me is the readiness of the Holy Father to accept and ordain men who have been married Anglican clergy. My wife has been a great help and adornment to my ministry, and I am glad there is the possibility that, should I be ordained a Catholic priest, this would continue.

Some members of the Ordinariates will come from the Anglican Communion, while others will come from different groups, such as the Traditional Anglican Communion, or even from Anglican Use parishes? Do you think that diversity will be a problem?

I believe that Anglicans in North America and elsewhere have been in such difficult situations that for them actual schism from the Anglican Communion has been necessary. I know several such priests and parishes, and have no doubt that we shall learn from one another and come to value one another. One of my greatest friends is a Priest of the Anglican Use in Texas, and I think he and I have more in common than I do with most of those in England who call themselves members of our church.

Do the Anglican Ordinariates have a future in the Catholic Church? How do you envisage them in, say, one hundred years?

I believe the Catholic Church is very patient; and I am sure she will want to learn from this experiment. I hope, personally, that the experience of a married priesthood might at some future date enable the Church to recognise that it is possible to have a double vocation, to the priesthood and to holy matrimony. I am greatly impressed by the way the Holy Father has introduced Anglicanorum Coetibus, making it clear that this is not a short-term solution to present-day problems, but a generous open offer for many years, perhaps centuries, to come. So who knows, it may be that eventually the Church of England will indeed return to her roots and become part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which she has always claimed to be.

How will the leaving (maybe we might say expelling) of Anglo-Catholics affect the Anglican Communion? Would it mean the end of its claim to be a branch of the Catholic Church? Do you expect the Anglican Communion to change much in the following years or decades?

It seems to me we are witnessing the break-up of the Anglican Communion – which was always a rather anomalous fruit of Empire. Gradually individual national churches will, I think, either join the Catholic Church, or dwindle into some amorphous protestant body, incapable of making any real witness to society.

What will the Roman Catholic Church gain by the ‘coming home’ of the Anglo-Catholics?

I hope we shall all gain enormously from this home-coming; it will be a reunion of friends, to replace the Parting of Friends of which Newman spoke.

How is Card. Newman regarded by Anglo-Catholics? Will you attend his beatification in September? Would you like to see him as one of the patron saints of the Ordinariates?

I believe John Henry Cardinal Newman has had a hand in what is happening in England today. Many of us are very glad to have him as a fellow-countryman. If I were permitted to be at his beatification I can think of no greater honour; and whether or not he is named as a patron of the Ordinariates, I am sure we should all be seeking his prayers at this wonderful time.

* * *

Cardinal Newman is a beacon of hope to those, myself included, hoping to avail themselves of the Ordinariate.  I recently returned to his autobiography – 'Apologia pro vita sua' – and found it useful for one contemplating the exciting journey.  Furthermore I feel Newman’s prayers are close to Anglo-Catholics at this historic moment and that he is willing us on from heaven.  May he lead us to safe pasture where Catholic truth is embraced and not treated with contempt and suspicion.

Whilst on holiday my mind kept returning to something bugging me at present — namely the lack of enthusiasm amongst many Anglo-Catholics!  I speak of those who, despite praying for reunion for years, are now acting as if the very possibility of being in communion with Peter is the end to all we hold dear.  How warped but revealing this is!

I do not speak of those asking questions or probing the agenda to advance its cause but of those who know in their hearts that they are going nowhere.  Why do they look for problems with a louder voice than they give public thanks?  Why pour cold water on the Ordinariate despite it being the ONLY show in town?  Why continue to look to an unloving synod when the Holy Father himself is now calling us to safety?  They remind me of the people in Jesus’ parable who had dead to bury and fields to plow — the finding of good excuses to mask a refusal to follow where He calls.

I suspect such people are not scared of an Ordinariate so much as terrified of risk and change.  Fear grips and they want to bury heads in the sand.  Or else they have grown far too content moaning on the fringes of an increasingly liberal establishment to risk or sacrifice comfort in pursuit of God’s truth!  Does the dreadful state of modern Anglicanism not bother them?  Do they not think the rejection of marriage and acceptance of serial monogamy (gay or straight) are serious salvation issues?  Nor think the silence on abortion is an affront to our Lord?  The acceptance of priests who do not believe?  The desire to please the world that trumps an ability to stand up for the Gospel?

Little wonder such people are angry!  The offer of an Ordinariate not only calls their bluff but wrecks the entire party!  Where is the integrity in defending a tiny Catholic tradition once you refuse to be part of the Catholic faith?  Any claim of Catholicity from those opting to stay — that is opting for communion with Schori, Gene Robinson et al instead of the Pope — will sound as funny to many as it sounds disingenous.

Perhaps Newman can help.  For he reminds us that fear is not a motive and nor is refusal to change.  However much we might desire that God suspends time — to keep us comfortable in our cosy ghettos — it ain't gonna happen.  So listen to Newman again: ‘to live is to change and to be perfect is to have changed often.’  Change is at the heart of the Gospel and change is what needs embracing once again.

Life does not stand still.  And however much we yearn to exist in ‘comfort zones’ these are never the places where we grow and develop.  I can not think of a single biblical hero who pleased God by considering salaries, housing or buildings — but I can think of dozens who learnt the meaning of faith through sacrifice, change and obedience.  We go into the Ordinariate not because we know it will work but because it is the only way we can stand up for our understanding of the faith with integrity.  If we really DO uphold Catholic doctrine then how can we possibly opt for Canterbury over Rome given the current state of both churches?

The call to join the Ordinariate is challenging then but cannot — and must not — be avoided.  We must embrace uncomfortable/risky change to stand up for our Catholic convictions.  Only this will demonstrate to others that we are Gospel people, a people desiring of truth.  To remain where we are will now smack of compromise given the statements we have made.

That is to say we can no longer pretend that the Anglican church offers a genuine ‘Catholic’ home, is part of the Church Universal, after the numerous heretical decisions of recent years.  To do that would be deeply dishonest and I think every Anglo-Catholic knows this in their heart.  Nor can we imagine that we have the ability to return it to a place of true orthodoxy when almost ALL theological colleges, Cathedrals and seats of power are now in the grip of liberal theologians.  To believe this is bordering on being delusional and the report of the Revision Committee reveals as much.  The very most we can hope for is to be left alone to slowly die out languishing in the margins whilst preaching a faith that does not resonate in any other part of the Church we belong to.  What a dreary prospect that is!

This is why logic dictates that the Anglo-Catholic Movement can only be leading to a place of upheaval and change.  The experiment born in the 19th Century is now over and this reality HAS to be faced.  I think that any impartial person with half a brain could tell us that much!  So we can either remain where we are and sink into history without trace within one generation or rejoice in the truly wonderful fact that the experiment ended in glory — the glory of communion with Rome.

Thus we have no option at present but to be brave and accept thing.  What is the Ordinariate if not the solution from God?  What is the point of being Anglo-Catholic if we opt to remain within a Church that stands for everything BUT the Catholic faith?!  Especially when we have the invitation to stand with true Catholics!

Again Newman can inspire us.  He too battled internally as he made momentous decisions.  He too embraced change in order to enter communion with Peter and live out the faith with integrity.  And having done so he found peace: “From the day I became a Catholic to this day, now close upon thirty years, I have never had a moment’s misgiving that the communion of Rome is that Church which the Apostles set up at Pentecost.”

The time for bravery is here and it is now.  Let us get our people ready.  Let us pray with joy in our hearts.  Let us stand up for what we truly believe!  And let us stamp out the negativity at this most vital and thrilling moment of our lifetime.

The Catholic Movement was always meant to be that — a MOVEMENT.  Why did we join it if we only wanted to stand still?  Why do we still pray for the Pope at Mass if we have no intention of joining him?  And why teach the Catholic faith at all if our real desire is to serve a protestant body that is so clearly now leading to a liberal conclusion?  Those seeking integrity in debate must answer these questions if they wish to make a case for remaining.  I cannot for the life of me see how they will do it.

* * *

CONVINCED BY THE TRUTH: EMBRACING THE FULLNESS OF CATHOLIC FAITH

by John I. Fleming
Modotti Press, 2010
(124 pages, $22.95 AUD)

To order click here.

This book, released only a few days ago on May 5, 2010, ought to be of particular and exceptional interest to all who are interested in the genesis and background of Anglicanorum Coetibus and in the deliquescence of world-wide "Anglicanism" of which it is one of the more conspicuous results.  Fr. Fleming is himself a well-informed "insider:" an Australian Anglican priest from 1970 to 1987 (Archbishop Hepworth of the TAC was once his Curate), he, his wife, their three daughters and his mother became Catholics in 1987, and he was ordained a priest in the Catholic Church in 1995.  He is, of course, also a regular contributor to this blog.

Like Gaul, it is divided into three parts.  The first part (Chs. 1-3, pp. 1-57) is autobiographical, written in the form of a letter to his three daughters, Rebecca, Jane and Jessica to explain the reasons why their parents became Catholics.  The second part (Chs. 4-7, pp. 58-91) is a defense and explanation of the Mass as a Sacrifice and of Transubstantiation, written in the form of a letter to "two young friends," one a Catholic, the other an agnostic – at its end we learn that the agnostic has become a Catholic and that the two have married.  The third, written together, in alternating subsections, with Archbishop Hepworth (Ch. 8, pp. 92-112) is an historical account of the TAC's relations with the Holy See up to the end of December 2009.  Finally, an appendix ("The Portsmouth Petition," pp. 113-122) presents in full, for the first time published publicly, I think, the letter to the Holy See that the TAC "college of bishops" approved and delivered to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in October 2007 [Actually, we published the full text of the Petition here in January. --Ed.].  I will not discuss the second section further in this review, save to note that it is concise, direct, "user-friendly" — and convincing.

I have heard it said that Fr. Fleming left the Anglican Church of Australia over the ordination of women, specifically, over the ordination of women to the diaconate, which that church's General Synod approved in the year that he left.  The book demonstrates, however, that such statements are untrue; and, in fact, he became a Catholic several months before that decision of the Australian Anglican General Synod.  Rather, he had assumed throughout the years of his Anglican ministry that the Anglican churches and the Catholic Church were converging, and the growth of the movement for women's ordination (henceforth WO) first upset him because its unilateral character on the Anglican side seemed to present an obstacle to this convergence, and subsequently brought to the foreground of his thought and concern the related problems of church authority and "catholicity."  In addition, as the book recounts, from the early 1980s onwards he had immersed himself in the study of Catholic moral theology and the natural law tradition of ethics, and this had slowly effected "an intellectual conversion" to the Catholic Church in his mind and heart.  Possibly (he writes) he would have become a Catholic earlier had he not been dissuaded by Catholic priests who had told him that after Vatican II the Catholic Church discouraged "individual conversions" and that he should, as he was told, "stay where you are and assist the ecumenical process."  Nevertheless, it should never be forgotten — and it is clear in the book — that the WO question was the issue that raised "the issue of authority" in an acute way, and which destroyed the Catholic ecclesiological credibility of Anglicanism for him.

In his Chapter 3, "Anglican Chaos — Self-Inflicted Wounds," he discusses this issue in greater detail, turning in part from the autobiographical to the expository.  The most revealing sections of this chapter concern his intellectual engagement with the foremost Australian Anglican proponent of WO, Keith Rayner, Archbishop of Adelaide from 1975 to 1990 (and subsequently Archbishop of Melbourne and Primate until his retirement in 1999), who had challenged him on the issue in 1976 after he had written a newspaper column in opposition to it.  He characterizes Rayner (as did an Australian historian at the time) as a "Whig historian," referring by that term to those 19th and early and mid 20th Century historians who treated British History from the Reformation onwards as "a continuous … and generally glorious story of social and political progress … such that we move onwards and upwards to better and better social and political conditions."  In terms of WO, what this means is that the task of the Church and her leaders and teachers is to "accept the inevitable" and devise theological rationales not only for that acceptance, but to promote and foster it, even if that means wresting the Scriptures and denigrating the Christian dogmatic and moral Tradition to do so.  This is clearly to identify the "Spirit of the Age" with the Holy Spirit (the Zeitgeist with the Heilig Geist), and it is just as clear that such an argument in favor of WO will work equally well in the matter of what I call SS (the blessing same-sex "marriages" or "life partnerships;" sanctified sodomy for short), as the more recent history of the Anglican Communion has demonstrated.

I agree with Fr. Fleming's employment of the term "Whig historian," but I prefer another: Erastian.  Thomas Erastus (d. 1585) was a German Calvinist physician who in the arguments over how the church should be organized in the Rhineland Palatinate after that territory embraced Calvinism in 1562 argued that every aspect of Church organization and discipline should be controlled by the Prince (or the State), including the vital matters of the determination of doctrinal standards and the excommunication (exclusion from receiving communion) of moral offenders and doctrinal dissidents.  In this he opposed those Calvinists (a minority, but who included Calvin himself) who believed that "spiritual matters" such as these should be the preserve of the clergy, assisted by those "lay elders" who were a feature of most Reformed (or Calvinist) churches wherever that particular form of Protestantism took root in Europe (save for England).  "Erastianism" is the belief that the State should control the Church, and, more loosely, that the laity should have equal say (at least) with the clergy in making decisions concerning church practices (such as WO and SS today) and, implicitly at least, of the beliefs that underlie such practices.

The Church of England since the Reformation is clearly an Erastian organization.  From 1534, when the English Parliament recognized Henry VIII as "Supreme Head on Earth" of the Church of England (and of Ireland) to 1554, when the legislation recognizing and enforcing that Royal Supremacy was repealed so as to allow the healing of the breach with Rome, the monarch effectively replaced the Pope locally as head of the Church of England, and in practice exercised a far more thoroughgoing and despotic power over it than popes ever did, unlimited in legal theory by anything except his (or her) will and conscience; but after 1559, when the English Parliament conferred the title and authority of "Supreme Governor" on Elizabeth I, that power was, in legal theory if not (initially) always in practice, not so much a "personal" endowment of the monarch, but one conferred upon that "political construct," the King-(or Queen)-in-Parliament, in other words, upon the State as such; and as the monarch's political power and role in government has declined and become purely "formal" over the past three centuries, that has become plainly apparent. In 1994 the British judiciary formally ruled, in a case brought by a clergyman of the Church of England, Paul Stewart Williamson, to try to prevent the first ordinations of women in the Church of England on the basis that such ordinations were incompatible with the doctrinal standards of the Church of England, that such arguments were irrelevant: even if they were true, Parliament was the ultimate authority in determining the doctrine of the Church of England, and in enacting legislation to allow for WO, Parliament had altered the doctrine of the Church of England to allow WO, for the doctrine of the Church of England was whatever Parliament determined that doctrine to be — a decision confirmed in 1996 and 1997; see here.

Outside England, no Anglican church is an Established Church.  The Rev'd Dr. Geoffrey Kirk, however, the Vicar of St. Stephen's, Lewisham, and long a leading figure in the Forward-in-Faith/UK organization, has coined the felicitous contrast of "the Established Church" in referring to the Church of England, and "the Church of the Establishment" for The Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC for short), "the Establishment" being the upper-crust elite (or those that fancy themselves as such) who attempt to determine policy and influence public opinion in accordance with their opinions and sentiments — in other words, those whose views are considered to constitute "bien-pensant public opinion."  No doubt such a phrase would apply as well in countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, to mention only a few.  So alongside the legal "Erastianism" of the Church of England I postulate a "Social Erastianism" in the United States and elsewhere that operates to the same end of conforming the doctrine and practice of Anglican churches to the promptings of the Zeitgeist.  Beside the obvious examples of WO and SS, we can see the same process at work earlier in the 1930 Lambeth Conference's acceptance of the practice of contraception (earlier Lambeth Conferences in 1908 and 1920 had condemned contraceptive practice unreservedly) and in the widespread acceptance of remarriage-after-divorce, even "church remarriage," in TEC since the 1950s and in England since the 1980s (from 1604 onwards the Church of England had the strictest stance against remarriage after divorce of any Christian church, not excluding the Catholic Church).

The last section, concerning the TAC background of Anglicanorum Coetibus, will perhaps attract most attention.  It stems from sources intimately involved in the process, and nothing that I can write on it is nearly so well-informed.  But it may not be amiss to suggest that it is not a complete account, and that some aspects of that history await their proper narrative. The first half of Chapter 8 (pp. 92-99), Fr. Fleming's portion, begins with an account of his continuing affectionate concern for Anglicanism and then, after a brief account of the origins of the TAC and its founding in 1990 and of the TAC's "first contact" with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) in 1991 and that PCPCU's subsequent seeming indifference to further approaches from the TAC, moves rapidly to the luncheon meeting on December 28, 2005 between Archbishop Hepworth and Bishop Chislett of the TAC and Fr. Fleming at which the approach of the TAC petitioning the Holy See for "corporate reunion … without conditions," including the bishops of the TAC all individually signing the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) as a token of their unconditional acceptance of all of the dogmatic and moral teachings of the Catholic Church was presented to the group by Fr. Fleming and accepted on the spot by the two Anglican bishops — proposals which had been accepted by synods of TAC bishops throughout the world by the time that all the TAC bishops and vicars general signed the Catechism and petitioned Rome for reunion in Portsmouth, England, on October 5, 2007.  The second portion, from Archbishop Hepworth (pp. 99-112) begins with his investiture as TAC Primate in November 2003, and the agreement of the TAC bishops present at that event to seek for corporate unity with the Holy See, although he also mentioned the polite "brush-off" that he received from the PCPCU when he approached that body some little time before his investiture, as well as the significant contacts which he made in Rome when he travelled there in spite of the cool response to his approaches from the PCPCU.  It then goes on, after briefly mentioning the December 28, 2005 luncheon meeting, to describing how synods of the English Province, the Southern African province, the Indian province, the American province and the Canadian province of the TAC all endorsed the proposal between early 2006 and April 2007, and how in 2007 he received word from the CDF in Rome that Hepworth and others would be cordially welcome to come to Rome immediately after the conclusion of the TAC Plenary Synod in October of that year to meet with the American Dominican Fr. Joseph Augustine DiNoia (then Undersecretary of the CDF, the third-ranking member of that dicastery, now, as Archbishop DiNoia, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and second-ranking member of that dicastery) to report on the synod.  It was at that synod that all the TAC bishops and vicars general signed the letter to the CDF that appears as "The Portsmouth Petition" in the appendix to the book under review, and signed also the CCC and its Compendium.  After the conclusion of the synod, Archbishop Hepworth and Bishops Robert Mercer and Peter Wilkinson of the TAC travelled to Rome to present the petition and other documents at the meeting with Fr. DiNoia, who, after responding "This is a moment of history!" assured the bishops of his enthusiasm and support for their petition.  Archbishop Hepworth's account goes on to discuss their subsequent wait, the arrival of word from Rome in July 2008 that all was going well — but at the same time a hint that the CDF was aiming at creating a structure that could embrace a wider portion of "the Anglican Diaspora" than the TAC — an intimation early in 2009 that the CDF's proposal was encountering opposition in Rome, and, finally, the announcement of the news conferences in October 2009 at which the Vatican's decision was announced, the formal release of Anglicanorum Coetibus on November 9, 2009 and the letter from Cardinal Levada to the archbishop of December 16, 2009 which constituted the formal Roman acceptance of the TAC's petition of October 2007.

What remains to be told is the full story of the TAC's dealings with the PCPCU during the years, 1989 to 2001, when Edward Idris, Cardinal Cassidy was President of that body, dealings which came to an end as Archbishop Falk and the other TAC bishops slowly came to realize that the cardinal's "bonhommie" concealed a lack of any real interest in pursuing substantive conversations with the TAC; and then, also, concerning the manner in which the TAC's attempt to renew its dealings with the PCPCU after Walter, Cardinal Kasper succeeded Cassidy as its President met only with silence — until a fortuitous and hastily-arranged meeting in (I think) Lent 2002 between Archbishop Falk and an influential Curial cardinal who was visiting in America resulted in that cardinal's making a direct personal approach on behalf of the TAC to the late Pope John Paul II, who, in turn, made his displeasure at the PCPCU's unresponsiveness known to those concerned with it.  The result was an "early retirement" on the part of a PCPCU bureaucrat, and a reopening of long-blocked avenues of communication.  Then there is the story of how the Prefect of the CDF, one Cardinal Ratzinger, became aware of the fact that the TAC was seeking "corporate reunion" and not "ecumenical dialogue," and of how, as a result, at some point in the course of 2003, responsibility for the conduct of Roman relations with the TAC was removed from the PCPCU and given to the CDF, with the provision, however, for the inclusion of Cardinal Kasper of the PCPCU among those who were to be kept apprised of how the conversations developed.  Or so I have been told — although in that case I find it hard to understand how Cardinal Kasper can in recent years so consistently have "misstated" the nature and purpose of the TAC's dealings with Rome, insisting as recently as November 2009 that the provisions of Anglicanorum Coetibus were intended primarily for "elements" in the Church of England, and only incidentally, if at all, for the TAC.  That there remain aspects of the story of the TAC's dealings with Rome that have yet to be told does not detract in the least from the immense importance and salience to present events and future prospects of this ever engaging account, for which we owe its author our gratitude and thanks.

I urge all readers of The Anglo-Catholic to obtain copies of this book for themselves, which they may do through the link that I have placed at the top of this review.

I have been in touch with one of those responsible for this initiative in the UK and am now able to clarify a few points of interest.

Firstly, at the present moment, whilst FiF UK is happy to commend the web site to their their people, the Forward in Faith Council has not formally approved the initiative, and, as such, it remains an unofficial enterprise.  The site is essentially a head-counting exercise and it should make sense that FiF UK is interested in gauging the support for Anglicanorum Coetibus amongst its own members.  The exclusion of a sign-up category for members of the Traditional Anglican Communion is being revisited, and the administrator of the FOTO site will be in touch with the TAC Vicar General in England to discuss the matter.

As I mentioned in the comment box of Deborah's initial post, a similar initiative is being planned for the North American context under the auspices of the TAC.  All interested Anglicans of whatever jurisdiction will be invited to participate when the time comes.  When this new personal ordinariate "society" is launched, it will be announced on The Anglo-Catholic.

Please keep in mind that the Holy Father's offer was addressed to groups of Anglicans.  Ultimately, these separate groups will unite under the banner of the future personal ordinariates, but at the moment, each must contend with its own challenges.  That FiF UK has moved (unofficially) to poll its membership should not be interpreted as jockeying for position.  After all, the TAC itself is attending to its own internal interests as well.  The leadership of the various Forward in Faith branches and the TAC are most definitely collaborating behind the scenes and all will be well in the end.  But as we work our way through this process — which is, after all, unprecedented — let's try not to get bent out of shape by every development which does not seem to have been perfectly coordinated or which does not fit our own expectations.

That this Synod, aware of the distress cause by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,"(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;

(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and

(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.".

On a “private member’s motion,” the General Synod of the Church of England was asked by a lay representative from the Diocese of Chichester, Lorna Ashley, to “express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America” (ACNA).  The ACNA web site is running a news story entitled "General Synod Affirms Anglican Church in North America" and David Virtue is calling this a "slap in the face at Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and an affirmation of the ministry and ecclesiastical of ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan," but far short of recognizing ACNA as a new province of the Anglican Communion, the General Synod merely deigned to acknowledge that the aspirations of this upstart group of "conservatives" may be sincere.  What a breakthrough!

• http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2010/01/abc-at-svs.html
• http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2010/01/likely-to-hurt-his-toe.html
• http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2010/02/oca-south-with-anglican-theme-and.html

This curious episode strongly parallels the conferral of similar honors on President Obamagabalus by Notre Dame University.  Mutatis mutandis, of course — but I will not be surprised if the events of January 30 inflict a mortal blow upon any "Anglican Project" that the OCA may have with regard to either ACNA (a forlorn hope, given the theological "latitude" of that coalition) or FtW/Quincy.  This is the man who, in *The Body's Grace,* clearly stated his support for SS (let the reader understand), and who had never recanted it — but who has only chosen to defer to the "current consensus" in the Anglican Communion as a whole against such an abomination, and not, be it noted, to that "Catholic consensus" which, in respect to SS (and WO) is as clear as any skeptic or "objective historian" could desire; and who has (as must be evident by now) exerted himself to the uttermost to prevent any meaningful "discipline" or "sanctions" to be imposed upon the Episcopal Church by the Anglican Communion at large as the former morphs before our eyes from a high-church "decorated Protestant" body into a Gnostic Revival sect.  One can imagine the puzzlement of dispossed Orthodoxophile Anglican "seekers" on learning of such an event, a sentiment recalled to mind lately by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, who some 22 years ago found himself in just that situation.

Then, too there is the AbC's constant ("firm" and "unyielding" would be oxymoronic terms if applied to the AbC) support for WO and "women bishops" — or "flaminicae," to use my favorite term.  He, like the Archbishop of York, has supported making "adequate provision" for opponents of "flaminicae" in the Church of England — provision which the Revision Committee of that church's General Synod (the body assigned the task of framing the specific legislative proposals) has now declined to endorse and of which the General Synod itself will most likely confirm the rejection at its July 2010 session.  Does anyone doubt that the AbC will support the legislation regardless of its totalitarian overtones and its effect of terminating the 1993 "Act of Synod" which provided a minimally adequate provision (in the view of those who embraced it) for opponents of the ordination of women to "the priesthood" in the Church of England at that time?  True, in an address which he gave earlier today to that General Synod he seemed to deplore the niggardly provision that it appears set to accord these opponents, but it is a rash man who would conclude from these "measured" words that he would actually vote to see the legislation for women bishops go down to defeat because of these deficiencies..

The AbC does have, as his writings attest, an interest, both personal and scholarly, in Orthodoxy.  To recognize this by the conferral upon him of an honorary degree by an institution charged with promoting Orthodox Christian orthodoxy does seem, to this outsider at least, a bit much.  At any event, it would have seemed more fitting for such an accolade to have been conferred upon Dr. Williams by a theological institution of the Finnish Orthodox church rather than one operating under the aegis of the Orthodox Church of America, given the strange "openness" that some Finnish Orthodox clergy and theologians have expressed of late towards accepting "faithful and monogamous" homosexual unions, as has been reported of late here and elsewhere:

http://www.kosmas.fi/PDF-files-veljeston%20paasivu/Finn_Ort_Probl_2009_Autumn.pdf

Archbishop Nichols characterized the Holy Father's response to Anglicans who have requested communion with Rome as "generous and paternal."

And he affirmed that the groundwork of "close cooperation and deepening friendship and communion" between Anglicans and Catholics have "helped us to ensure that the various interpretations of and reactions to 'Anglicanorum Coetibus' have not seriously disrupted the relationships between our Ecclesial Communions."

"Indeed," the prelate said, "the commitment to commence a third round of discussions as part of the work of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission has reinforced this relationship. We remain ready to explore with those Anglicans in England and Wales who wish to take up your generous and paternal response to their requests the ways forward towards full communion."

• The Holy Father has officially confirmed his upcoming trip to the UK. In his address to the English and Welsh bishops at the end of their visit ad limina Apostolorum, Benedict XVI also challenged the bishops to teach with united voice, upholding orthodoxy, and not legitimizing dissent against the teaching of the Church.

In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognise dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.

Click here to view the embedded video.

• The President Bishop of the Episcopal/Anglican Diocese of Eqypt, The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer H. Anis, has resigned from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Bishop Anis says that there is no longer any place for orthodox Anglicans in the Anglican Communion.

After much prayer and consideration, I hereby submit my resignation from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (SCAC). I have come to realize that my presence in the current SCAC has no value whatsoever and my voice is like a useless cry in the wilderness.

Many sing praises of “inclusiveness” while at the same time they exclude others. I am deeply disturbed in my conscience when I see a kind of double-standard in dealing with different issues. While emphasising the importance of caring for the marginalised in our communities, like the LGBT community, the orthodox Anglicans are being marginalized. I understand that in a family, the concern of every member is cared for; but this is not the reality in our meetings where the orthodox voices are disregarded or suppressed.

• SSPX group attacks FSSP chapel over rumor of an ecumenical Mass. The FSSP Chapel of St Peter Apostle in Guadalajara (The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter) was asked to schedule a Mass for the conversion of those outside the Church, in an effort to promote true unity among all Christians. The Mass was called a Mass for the conversion of sinners outside the Church, to be followed by a rosary in reparation for false ecumenism. The SSPX however heard through the grapevine that an ecumenical Mass was going to take place and they jumped to false conclusions. As a result, the SSPX went ballistic, calling for a protest against the upcoming scheduled Mass at the FSSP chapel.  The SSPX laymen came to the FSSP church the morning before the Mass on Wednesday Jan 20th, 2010, and they spray painted the walls around the church! A first hand account wrote, "Ecumenismo no! Judas!" was spray painted in huge letters three times, almost all the way around, and one time on the side walk.

The comments on this blog reveal a serious lack of comprehension of the Catholic movement in the Church of England, for which the article was written. It describes attitudes here as they are, rather than as wishful thinking would like them to be.

Anglicanorum Coetibus does seem to be designed principally for the Church of England, rather than TAC. Cardinal Kasper has said so. The announcement was made in England, with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the platform, not representatives of TAC.

AC needs to be appraised realistically. Will it be viable in England? I note the very subdued expectations on this blog about its reception by Anglicans in N America.

I would answer simply by saying that if this priest is right, the Pope is truly poaching – and that makes nonsense of his assurance to +Rowan that ecumenism would continue. Perhaps His Holiness is lying? We have already commented on Cardinal Kasper’s comments, which are totally misleading and irrelevant. The Pope and Cardinal Levada trump Cardinal Kasper. I suppose Father doesn’t have an ace up his sleeve? See the comments on the original posting.

Another couple of titbits I picked up today concern Evreux and France. In the official review of the diocese of Evreux, we find a curious position on the Eucharist for a Catholic priest.

When one speaks of the Real presence, the idea expresses the real presence of Christ in his Church.

That seem somewhat ambiguous and fairly harmless, but this priest has the kindness to make himself clear – source: "Let us not imagine we eat the flesh of the man Jesus … The flesh spoken about in St John’s Gospel “My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John vi. 51-53.) is the flesh of the resurrected, the body of Christ, a “spiritual body”. What is the mode of presence of a “spiritual” body? Not a physical presence but a sacramental or symbolic presence. The Sacrament, the symbol, uniting the human and the divine, the most material (bread) and the most “spiritual” (the body of Christ)".

This is pure Gnosticism (dualism between flesh and spirit). Here is also a site on Gnosticism from the point of view of those who promote it. I would advise against reading the latter site unless you have a good grounding in Catholic theology. The characteristic of Gnosticism that is at issue here is that matter cannot participate in spirit (and vice versa). Thus the Incarnation and any consequence of the Incarnation would be impossible.

It gets better. The priest appointed to take Fr Michel’s place has had this to say:

Encouraging the commitment of each person in the service of the common good. Favorising la unionisation of persons to contribute to the social dialogue. Supporting elected authorities [preferably socialists?] in their initiatives to favour employment. Getting close to the most fragile. Interrogating those who have a certain power over cashflows to make money a means of development for all and not a source of personal enrichment. Maintaining international actions of solidarity. Avoiding  making of our religion a disincarnate form of pietism and ceasing to live as if the way of God did not go though man.

This, though capable of a Christian interpretation, is pure left-wing politics.

These things are so many red herrings designed to weaken our resolve and confidence. Pope Benedict XVI is not senile or out of touch with reality. He would not put his entire credibility on the line for something designed to fail. He knows perfectly well what is going on. His purpose is one of restoration and a true Catholic movement to sweep away all this tired-out Establishment nonsense.

I came across this article in Virtue Online. The title is provocative, perhaps deliberately so.

Was Anglicanism really a via media in the opinion of Richard Hooker? Whether we agree with this article or not, it seems worth reading. It certainly seems to take the mask off a certain tendency that has been manifesting itself lately.

I would be interested in reading comments about this Virtue Online article.

In writing this article, I have allowed myself to be influenced to a great extent by something written by Giles Pinnock on his blog.

The good Holy Father shows charity and courtesy to all, and this is what I love about him. And this is what gives us confidence in him for the carrying through of his new legislation and our canonical admission to the communion of the universal Church.

In itself, ARCIC 3 will be little more than polite platitudes and claptrap, but it keeps the door open. Simply, most Anglicans will not show any interest in the Ordinariates whether they are liberal, open-minded or closed-minded bigots. Some may come in after a time, and others will remain as they are or cease to practice any kind of Christian religion when Bishop Broadhurst's analogy of the frog-boiling pot gets too hot.

The polite chit-chat may continue, and it keeps them occupied. If it looks in the future as if things are getting too close, then another innovation will be brought in to throw a spanner in the works. If present innovations are not enough, others could be introduced! There’s always a way to practice ecclesial coitus interruptus! One does wonder why time and money are spent "flogging a dead horse".

There is one possible reason the dialogue is continuing.

While it is in the nature of Anglicanism that members of its competing groups give up on each other when we don’t espouse the right line on the particular neuralgic issue of the moment, the Catholic Church by nature cannot give up on any of the Baptized who are presently outside her.

ARCIC, for all its verbosity and hot air, was an attempt to introduce a gentle and subtle notion of catechetics and apologetics, helping people to see beyond the standard barriers that keep Christians apart and hostile to each other. People need to be drawn by beauty, truth and kindness – not by bitter reproach and hurling insults.

Anglicanorum Coetibus will only receive small numbers of Anglicans in the immediate future, but remains open to as many as are ready when they will be ready, however long it takes. It will certainly also extend to communities of high-church and Catholic-minded Lutherans who have a rich patrimony based on medieval German Catholicism.

Perhaps ARCIC 1 and 2 has done some good in catechising the Anglican faithful about the Mother of God and notions about the Church and the Pope. That is something, and something is better than nothing. What is important is charity and courtesy, and maybe much can be achieved in the future through Anglicanorum Coetibus or something even more developed in years to come.

It’s all frustratingly slow for those of us who are ready now, but too fast for those who are not ready. No one is beyond hope.

According to Msgr. Langham, the “starting point” of the talks would be "the broader question of the relationship between the universal church and the local church" with the divisive issues of women's ordination (and that of practicing homosexuals) and same-sex marriage being discussed — despite the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury, during his visit to Rome last week, characterized these as "second order" issues that should be downplayed in ecumenical dialogue.

This last phase of ARCIC (Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission) is nothing more than a formality, Rome having lost faith in the Anglican Church as genuine ecumenical partner long ago.  As late as the Lambeth Conference last year, Cardinal Kasper called for the Anglican Communion to “clarify its identity,” warning that the church must make “certain difficult decisions” to determine whether it belongs to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches of the first millennium or the Protestant Churches of the 16^th century.  This ultimatum came two decades too late, of course, but the Anglican Church has made it decision.  As Fr. Geoffrey Kirk put it at the recent FiF UK National Assembly, "The Anglican Communion must be the only institution in the history of the world, willfully and deliberately, to call down plagues upon its own head."  The personal ordinariates provided by Anglicanorum Coetibus are the closest thing to "corporate reunion" as can now be achieved.  We remain profoundly grateful to the Holy Father for the Apostolic Constitution, but the same time, faithful Anglicans everywhere are deeply grieved to witness the ignominious end of the once glorious Church of England and her Communion of sister Churches.  O what might have been!

On the Catholic side, this sometimes leads to the suspicion that negotiating ecumenical agreements with Anglicans is a fruitless exercise, since there’s no way to be sure that the entire Communion will stand behind the results.

Really… you think?

According to Mr. Allen, the future of "ecumenism" is in Africa.

In addition, the flavor of Christianity in Africa is more ad extra than ad intra, more concerned with broad social, political and cultural issues than internal church debates. As a result, Catholics and Anglicans both see matters such as fighting poverty and corruption as better uses of their time than defining the precise nature of papal authority, or debating the fine points of liturgical practice. On those outward-looking social questions, Anglicans and Catholics in Africa generally share the same values and aims.

Finally, Anglican and Catholic leaders in Africa often aren’t as invested in the defining aim of the ecumenical movement in Europe and North America – full, visible, structural reunion. Instead, their ecumenism is often of a more practical stamp, focused on what the separate churches can do together right now on political and cultural matters.

Yeah… no need to define the aim.  Certainly, "full, visible, structural reunion" — that would heal the open wounds in the Body of Christ — isn't worth attempting.  Better we focus on "practical" matters like politics and culture.  Why be bothered with saving souls when we can win elections?

In that sense, the template for the ecumenical future may not be the new “personal ordinariates” decreed by Rome, but rather something like the “Christian Association of Nigeria,” a self-defense league formed in the late 1970s to defend Christians when Islamic militia began spreading around the countryside. It’s become an important player in Nigerian politics, with wings for both women and youth.

For Mr. Allen, a successful political party is a apparently greater ecumenical achievement than a revolutionary new structure that will reconcile separated brethren with the Catholic Church!

Read the entire story here.

The enormity of the propositions put forth by the ABC in this address is absolutely grotesque.

In Rowan's mind, the differences that exist between the Canterbury Communion and the Catholic Church are really not all that great.  Apparently there's been a "strong convergence" between the Anglican and Catholic understandings of the nature of the Church (who knew?).  It turns out that disagreements over papal primacy and the ordination of women are "second order" issues and the Roman Church is just being silly for believing otherwise.

Once again, I am asking how far continuing disunion and non-recognition are justified, theologically justified in the context of the overall ecclesial vision, when there are signs that some degree of diversity in practice need not, after all, prescribe an indefinite separation. I do not pretend to be offering a new paradigm of ecumenical encounter, far from it.

No, Your Grace, you are correct; this definitely sounds like the same old "paradigm of ecumenical encounter" — the tired "ecclesial vision" of the professional ecumaniacs: "Why can't we all just get along?"

According to the ABC, Rome should look to the Anglican Communion as a model for successful church government in the future!  Referring to Cardinal Willebrands' ideas, he suggested that the Church might be "a ‘community of communities’ and a ‘communion of communions’ – not necessarily a single juridically united body."

The current proposals for a Covenant between Anglican provinces represent an effort to create not a centralised decision-making executive but a ‘community of communities’ that can manage to sustain a mutually nourishing and mutually critical life, with all consenting to certain protocols of decision-making together.

The ABC admitted, however, that this covenant was "part of a variegated response [to "the crises and controversies of recent years"] that will, no doubt, continue for a good while yet to be refined and formulated."  Yep, the Anglican Communion just needs a tune-up.

Perhaps most astonishingly, Dr. Williams questioned Catholic doctrine on the ordination of women and even suggested the Anglican provinces that had introduced the innovation had done so based on principles agreed in ARCIC!

I don’t want here to rehearse the arguments for and against the ordination of women, only to ask how recent determinations on the Roman Catholic side fit with the general pattern of theological convergence outlined. The claim of certain Anglican provinces is that the ordination of women explicitly looks to an agreed historic theology of ordained ministry as set out in the ARCIC report and other sources. Beyond that, many Anglicans have been wary of accepting a determination of who can be ordained that might appear to compromise the some of the agreed principles about how ordination relates to the whole body of the baptised. This, by the way, would hold for at least some who believe that a decision within a divided Church about a matter affecting the universal ministry should not be taken by a single province or group of provinces. But for many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women, which in their view threatens to undermine the coherence of the ecclesiology in question.

And lastly, Rowan says the new provision for Anglican ordinariates in the Catholic Church doesn't break any fresh ecclesiological ground.

The recent announcement of an Apostolic Constitution making provision for former Anglicans shows some marks of the recognition that diversity of ethos does not in itself compromise the unity of the Catholic Church, even within the bounds of the historic Western patriarchate. But it should be obvious that it does not seek to do what we have been sketching: it does not build in any formal recognition of existing ministries or units of oversight or methods of independent decision-making, but remains at the level of spiritual and liturgical culture, as we might say. As such, it is an imaginative pastoral response to the needs of some; but it does not break any fresh ecclesiological ground. It remains to be seen whether the flexibility suggested in the Constitution might ever lead to something less like a ‘chaplaincy’ and more like a church gathered around a bishop.

Somehow I think the breaking of fresh theological ground will be the only thing in ++Cantuar's mind when he sits down with the Holy Father on Saturday!