Bishop Peter Wilkinson, Metropolitan of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada

14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. 17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. 18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.

19 But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.

One of the things I discovered about the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada when I first entered its doors about ten years ago was that it was part of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), which had already been in informal but serious talks with the Holy See about coming into full, sacramental and visible unity with the Bishop of Rome.  This was no secret more than a decade ago when I joined, and had been true since the TAC's formation in the early 1990s.

And since 2007, when the bishops (and vicars general in dioceses where there are no bishops) signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and its Compendium on the altar of St. Agatha's in Portsmouth, England, and sent a formal Petition to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the CCC has been the official doctrine of the TAC.

Synods did not have a vote on the matter, since doctrine is not decided democratically but is a matter for our bishops, but nevertheless, in 2007, synods all around the world endorsed our bishops making an official request to Rome before that historic letter was brought to the CDF along with the signed catechism.

So it occurred to me that it is kind of odd for a small but vocal group of people who worship at TAC churches — clearly a minority at our Synod — now to be saying that they can't agree with certain doctrines like Papal Infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, or the Petrine Ministry and therefore they won't join an Ordinariate.

They are already attending a church which professes and teaches what an Ordinariate will teach and has been doing so officially for at the last three years, and unofficially much longer than that.

If they think there are theological differences between the ACCC and the Catholic Church, they are sadly mistaken.  They are also sadly mistaken if they think the ACCC is a congregational church where they get a vote on theology.

There are a number of stories out on the blogosphere about this parish hiving itself off in Australia, or the dissident priest in Victoria, B.C. setting up his own little church under a bishop in another continuing Anglican body.  I'm not even going to link to those stories.  They are easy enough to find on David Virtue's site for those who are curious.  This blog is not about division, it's about an historic move towards unity, a move that makes me feel so much joy that I can scarcely contain it.  And it is so wonderful that we have here a community of folks from within the Catholic Church and from Forward in Faith — in addition to us TACers — eager to take part in this historic event unfolding before our eyes.

It is very, very easy for a focus on dissent to magnify its negative effects so that what might have been ripples on a pond begin to seem like white caps and crashing waves.  I'd rather focus on the majority opinions of gratitude and thanksgiving that our bishops have been receiving from across the land for leading us this far.

So today, I thank God for Bishop Peter Wilkinson, Bishop Carl Reid, my Ottawa bishop, and Bishop Craig Botterill, our Halifax bishop and ACCC Chancellor, for their wise shepherding thus far.  And I thank God for Archbishop John Hepworth, the TAC primate and I hope all of you will join me in lifting him and all our TAC bishops up in prayer.  And let us pray  for the Holy Father who has answered our request with such graciousness in the Apostolic Constitution.

"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it," says Psalm 127.

I think we can be serenely and joyfully confident that the Lord is building the Ordinariates and the anger, dissent, and rebellion within and without are all signs of how much the enemy of our souls does not want this to happen.  We can be exceedingly glad rather than perplexed by this sign.  It is also a call though to be charitable with people who may not realize the source of their anger, stubbornness and rebellion.  We war not with flesh and blood.

So let's maintain our peace, and all the fruits of the Spirit and move quietly forward, enjoying this gestational period for the Ordinariates that the Lord is creating through frail human beings like us.

As a Baptist, I came upon one church after another that had written its own statement of faith. Each one had a different phrase or point that they felt was essential that the others did not have. I, myself, had wanted some kind of "confession of faith" that was more broadly based. I sought after something that would have some historicity to it; I liked reading the Church Fathers, and I earnestly longed to be able to say, "our confession was first written hundreds of years ago" (to me that felt like it would be ancient). Eventually, I found the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and thought I had seen the shekinah glory. From there, the transition was quite easy to the Westminster Confession of Faith (the confession written by Presbyterians in 1647). The two were very similar and that meant there was little that was new. Though I had a few "exceptions" over issues that I was unconvinced about (I never believed the Pope was the Antichrist) I stayed with that as "my" confession for many years.

When I joined the Reformed Episcopal Church some of the priests referred to themselves as "Presbyterians with a Prayer Book" so that made the move into a logical next step in my spiritual journey. That meant the Thirty-Nine Articles. The substance of the Articles was not terribly different than what I was used to in Reformed Presbyterian circles. I read them, studied them, discussed them, wrote articles on them, and bought a number of books that gave deeply specific exegesis.

At this point, I became acutely aware of something that disturbed me. Whereas in Protestant Evangelical circles there were numerous opinions as to what each statement of the confessions exactly meant, they each believed that there really had to be only one true opinion. In all these Anglican commentaries, I was finding a resistance to "over-defining" and something of a joy in being non-specific. I even had one priest tell me that the "unofficial mascot" of Anglicanism was the duck-billed platypus; because he was so hard to narrow down and define, and "Anglicans like it that way". About the same time, I was at a synod meeting and listened to a debate over the particulars of one statement in the diocesan constitution. The first comment was, "can we be more clear and define exactly what it means for the priest to ensure 'reverent music' in the liturgy?" The response was, "no, most of us prefer things less specific, that is what it means to be Anglican after all."

Then I picked up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I started to read. By comparison with the Confessions I once held to, or the Articles that (I thought) I held to, this was massive. I even once asked myself if anyone could really be sure about that much? As I read, I found a wealth of information and specific definitions that was exactly what I had been looking for all my life. Yes, this "statement of faith" had only been written a few years before, but its content was the same as what the Church held to centuries before any Protestant Confession came on the scene. This was definitive truth that was not a resistance to clarity. With an allowance for variation in non-essentials, it was an encouragement to faithfulness in the essentials. Things that were left vague in the Anglican denomination I was a part of (artificial contraception, tradition, ecclesiastical authority, etc.), were now a "given", and with the authority of the historic Church behind it. I found such joy in digesting these words, that I began to find that the "via media" of Anglicanism was not much different than the "everyone interprets for himself" that I came across so often in Protestantism.

If being "non-specific" in the arena of theology and practice really is a part of the Anglican Patrimony, then that is something we should not try to maintain in the Ordinariates. Though there are Anglicans who are pleased with the specificity of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are others who prefer things left open and vague; apparently so that each priest can "choose for himself" and not have any rules to tie him down. This may work fine when everyone agrees on the historic faith, but when the historic faith is jettisoned (as in the TEC) chaos will soon follow. If we let each man decide for himself we are slowly, but surely, led into positions that our forefathers would have gagged at. The "undefined Anglican" way can easily be confused with being gracious towards our brethren and thus giving them the benefit of the doubt in those non-essential areas where we may not see eye to eye. The latter practice is a good thing, and it shows brotherly love and the biblical principle of treating others as better than ourselves. Yet, the desire to maintain a lack of clarity so that we can be free of restrictions is a dangerous thing. The sinfulness of our hearts cannot be trusted, and the latitude that comes with being "undefined" can only lead to another disaster like The Episcopal Church. When we enter the Ordinariate, let us rejoice in the specifics; thank the Magisterium for their teaching; and give praise to God that we have a clear direction to go in and a definition of who we are and how we are to live.

Here we are in the summer after Anglicanorum coetibus. One would think that, in the months that AC has been studied and discussed, it would be well understood.

Yet despite the clear intent of the apostolic constitution, and despite the self-evident implications of full communion for doctrinal unanimity, discussion continues, in this forum and elsewhere, suggesting that some who dissent from portions of Church doctrine should nevertheless seek membership through the ordinariates – as if accession to the ordinariates will not, or should not, require a profession of faith.

In drafting Anglicanorum coetibus, the Holy Father wisely anticipated so many questions. And now we can see the wisdom and foresight of Benedict in providing that the Catechism of the Catholic Church will be the standard of faith in the ordinariates (AC Section 5). The Holy Father anticipated the argument that, despite its internally contradictory nature, is now being played out.

What AC offers is the opportunity to come into the fullness of the faith without having to leave behind the beauty of the Anglican patrimony. What AC does not offer is a shortcut that would allow someone to claim full communion while rejecting, or worse yet, while declining even to consider what the faith teaches us.

In a comment elsewhere in this forum, Father Berry quotes the Catechism: “Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness." (CCC 2088) Father Berry then goes on to say in his own words, “It is only this deliberate cultivation of doubt – this hardening of the heart against some teaching of the Church – this willful shutting off of one’s hearing from the teaching voice of the Church that is a problem.”

Many Anglicans who now find themselves being called to full communion through the ordinariates have confronted the crisis in Anglicanism and have identified it for what it is: the lack of a consistent, unified, and trustworthy magisterium. And yet, perhaps out of habit more than anything else, and even while acknowledging the primacy of Peter, some are not quite ready to embrace the Magisterium of the Church. Perhaps there is some Marian doctrine, or some question of Holy Orders, or some obscure theological point that is not immediately accessible.

This is an obstacle that must be overcome before full communion is possible. Father Berry rightfully refers to it as a hardening of the heart. Perhaps it is just an old habit.

I understand that habit, the habit of disobedience, and I understand it from personal experience. Most thoughtful people understand it. And sooner or later, most Catholics (Anglo-, cradle- or otherwise) must confront the crisis of obedience as we consider — seriously consider — what the Church teaches us. Embracing the discipline of obedience to Church teaching, and doing so willingly and as an exercise of one's own freedom, is the solution.

Embracing obedience to Church authority as a voluntary exercise of freedom may at first seem paradoxical. But an exercise of freedom is not a surrender of freedom, as every new day will bring a new opportunity to revoke the obedience, and willfully to fall into error. Thus there truly is no contradiction.

Willingly embracing obedience demands a difficult new discipline and spirituality for all who come to it for the first time as adults. (We independently-minded Texans in particular, come to it with particular difficulty.) But once arriving at the necessity to reconcile, we can reason that obedience is just an appropriate response to authority, that Christ founded the Church on authority, and that authority is necessary for the preservation of the integrity of the faith.

Coming to a place where we are willing to accept whatever the Church teaches, simply because it is being taught by Christ through legitimate apostolic authority, can be a liberating experience.

Is it possible that we may have not just equal freedom, but greater freedom, after voluntarily submitting to authority? Perhaps so. I am more free, rather than less free, if I can accept doctrine based on Divine authority. I am free from the need to process the question through the weak filter of my own individual theological expertise, or through a synod or convention that determines doctrine by popular vote (and changes its mind every several years), or through a minister whose only authority is a bible college diploma. And I am free from uncertainty.

To those who feel a call to reunion through the ordinariates, you are being called to full communion, which demands full acceptance of all that the Church teaches. Consider that submission to the truth might be liberating, and not a burden at all. Consider the possibility that Anglicanorum coetibus offers you a new level of beauty and of freedom in your relationship with the Truth that is Jesus Christ

"At the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son from the Father…"  To catechize is "to reveal in the Person of Christ the whole of God's eternal design reaching fulfillment in that Person.  It is to seek to understand the meaning of Christ's actions and words and of the signs worked by him."  Catechesis aims at putting "people…in communion…with Jesus Christ: only he can lead us to the Father in the Spirit and make us share in the life of the Holy Trinity (426)."

If, as we read in the CCC,  "At the heart of catechesis [is] Christ," how can one ever think that a minimalistic presentation is better?  This is not to say, as I stated above, that the Prayer Book catechism is wrong.  On the contrary, it is a commendable, very basic catechism, one that is a stellar tool for the teaching of children.  Unfortunately, there is nothing beyond this rudimentary presentation of Christ readily accessible for the "Prayer Book Catholic" crowd.  Anecdotally, I remember when I first entered the Anglican tradition I was instructed by my priest to read the CCC, but to ignore the Papal claims definitely, and the Marian teachings if I so desired.  This demonstrates the understanding that even among committed Anglicans there is a recognition of a deficiency in the Prayer Book catechism for an in depth understanding of the teachings of the Church.  It also demostrates the necessity of our embracing of the Holy Father's provision provided in Anglicanorum Coetibus.  Because, if it is our primary responsibility to shepherd our people toward the fold of Christ, do we not need to pass through the most fertile field?  It seems quite obvious the the richest sustenance is to be found in the CCC — and that in its entirety.

In catechesis "Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,…is taught – everything else is taught with reference to him – and it is Christ alone who teaches…(427)"

This clash of two fundamental views of the Church and the Gospel have played out in many theatres. Instransigent Catholicism, based on the Counter Reformation and the hardening of positions in regard to the Englightenment, was galvanised particularly during the pontificate of Pius IX , Pope from 1846 to 1878, and even more particularly since returning to Rome from his exile at Gaëta in 1848.

After a relatively “liberal” atmosphere for scholars under Leo XIII (1878-1903), war was declared against any theologians who were not strict Roman Thomists, and not only against those whose biblical study methods lead them to abandon belief in miracles, but also those who sought to formulate a new way of defending Catholicism against erosion by liberal Protestantism — whose appeal to science and human progress caused them to be labelled Modernists. St Pius X (Pope from 1903 to 1914) allowed an Italian prelate by the name of Umberto Benigni to police the Church in the form of a kind of spiritual “gestapo.” That secret organisation was abolished quickly enough by Benedict XV. It was for Pius XI in the 1920’s to deal with Action Française, a form of French political nationalism disguising itself as intransigent Catholicism.

Essentially, we had two main camps in Catholicism, one that wanted nothing to do with the modern world, unless it had the political power to have the upper hand. The other, equally orthodox, was prepared to dialogue with the modern world and at least find a modus vivendi. In particular, the Church had to find a way of keeping going in anti-clerical countries like France, Spain, Germany, England — and just about everywhere where people had been abused by excesses of Catholic-dominated politics.

Thus, it is not surprising that in the 1920’s and 30’s, intransigent Catholics found Mussolini and Hitler to be godsends. I am not falling into the trap of accusing Pius XII here, because there is evidence he saw through the Nazi shenanigans very quickly, since he spoke German fluently and had been Apostolic Nuncio in Germany. Pius XII has been cleared and vindicated by all serious historians. However, not so with a certain number of Catholic bishops, prelates, priests and lay people. They saw Fascism and Nazism as a tool to sweep away the scourge of Communism, Freemasonry, the French Republic and every manifestation in the modern world of the Enlightenment. When World War II was over in 1945, the evil backfired on them. Europe was to be divided into those who had been collaborators and those who fought in the Resistance or at least risked their lives saving Jewish children from deportation and death along with Allied prisoners of war. This is the collusion between intransigent Catholicism and twentieth century totalitarianism. The intransigent Catholics chose the wrong allies instead of relying on the Gospel and the way of Christ.

Those are the explosive ingredients to what happened at Vatican II and the historical enmity between the young German theologian Fr Joseph Ratzinger and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. The division in Europe between intransigents and “liberals” drew the battle lines in the Church, and extended them into Anglicanism and Protestantism, and indeed every religious expression present in the western world. The rest is common knowledge.

The point I am making here is that “totalitarian” Catholicism has had its day, and leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth. I have always been attracted by the beauty of the traditional liturgy — which should not have been ruthlessly modified and destroyed in the 1960’s — and by Catholic spirituality. I have always been easily convinced by Catholic doctrine as expressed in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the modern Catholic Catechism which incorporates the “new” ecclesiology of men like Louis Bouyer, Henri de Lubac and Joseph Ratzinger.

A few intégristes in the Catholic world are nostalgic of the anti-Modernist policing of the 1900’s and the ungodly relationship between intransigent Catholicism and European nationalist totalitarianism in the 1920’s, 30's and 40’s. Now we can understand the mentality of the Society of St Pius X, the scandalous sayings of Bishop Richard Williamson in his conspiracy theories and historical revisionism, the declarations of Fr Schmidberger, the sticky points in the present dialogue with the CDF — and our very own Peter Perkins. Perhaps the latter shows evidence of a little more moderation than that, but I fear that his moderation is little more than a sugar coating to have us swallow a very bitter pill.

I have no sympathy either for the people who have destroyed our liturgy, who have poisoned the Church with cultural Marxism and deconstructionism. I believe in miracles and the supernatural. I have no sympathy with the exegesis of demythologising liberals like Spong, Bultmann or Harnack. I seek beauty of truth and the spiritual life in the Church.

Vatican II was necessary, because the modern world had found the institutional Church to be so aloof and arrogant that it simply disconnected. People voted with their feet. It wasn’t the liturgical changes that emptied the churches, but only aggravated the haemorrhage. The Church has to have a dialogue, however difficult it may be at times, with the modern world, with people who say they are “spiritual but not religious”, and with people of other religions. I think many of us Anglicans find the conciliatory and diplomatic approach reasonable. This means not insulting people of other religions, tolerating and respecting them. Calling the objects of their worship “false gods” is not going to help.

I came from a family that is more or less guided by the principles of the Enlightenment. We tend to be sceptical and perhaps a little over-trusting in natural science. Faith came to me through beauty (both natural and man-made) and the kindness of the religious people I knew like my school chaplain and the parish clergy I met in York in the 1970’s. I try to rely on reason and often react emotionally from my experiences in life.

Some people who read The Anglo-Catholic are offended by what I write, because I sympathise more with a certain “liberalism”, or rather, tolerant conservatism, than with intolerant and intransigent “bully-boy” religion that will only discuss on its own terms. For the time being, the Catholic Church has Benedict XVI — the old Fr Joseph Ratzinger who dared to challenge Cardinal Ottaviani and the old Inquisition. Anglicanism waited for a very long time to have a Pope who built a bridge over the Tiber instead of having us swim over and grovel at his feet on the other side. How it will be under the next Pope, I have no idea, but we have to live for the present day and not worry about anything else (we might die before the Pope does!).

There is a Christian humanist side of Catholicism, love and empathy for other people, a genuine desire to put the Gospel into practice, which I would like to help Anglicans and former Anglicans discover in the Catholic Church. There are many wolves and sociopaths around, any number of people who would frustrate everything we are trying to do and reduce everything to nothing – and we need to learn to recognise them.

Let us simply keep our eyes open, be lucid, and go forward with confidence.

* * *

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.

* * *

An Article by Father Michael Shier

So where were you in 1977, when Bishop Peter Wilkinson, our Father in God, effectively founded the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, and people laughed at him? No money, no pension, no property, no prospects. Where were you when Father Edward Gale got us going here in the Lower Mainland, when our founders were bearing the burden and heat of the day? I know where I was. I was a “Johnny come lately” in a comfortable church where we hoped no one would do a wrecking job and make our position untenable. More fool me! I have taken a long time to fully appreciate the courage and foresight of those who made the first moves way back in 1977. If I am now back in a comfortable church after only a brief period in the wilderness, it is because of those who laid the foundations whilst being jeered at as freaks :- people of the stature of Fr. Gale alone on Maine Island, of Fr. Switzer alone up island on Vancouver Island, of Raymond and Jeannette Mynette alone in mid Saskatchewan, of Canon Zacharias alone in Switzerland, of Fr. Chadwick alone in France, of Stan and Ruth Horrall who can’t get to the Ottawa church in winter.

For all of us the risks of the Apostolic Constitution are minimal and the benefits are enormous. Bishop Mercer writes: “Pope Benedict has written that Catholics cannot demand that other churches be disbanded and their members be individually incorporated into the Catholic Church. They must remain in existence as Churches with only those modifications which unity necessarily requires. The Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches.” Rather it is preparing for other Churches a place of their own.

Bishop Elliot helps to explain the situation by referring first to the Eastern Catholic Churches. These autonomous churches are in communion with Rome, but their members are not Roman Catholics. “Many Anglicans do not understand that the Catholic Church is not a monolithic structure. She is a communion of Churches, led by Bishops who are in communion with Rome and with one another, members of one apostolic college.” “…many other particular churches are grouped within a series of ancient Eastern Rites, also in communion with Rome, but use liturgies appropriate to their origins: Syrian, Greek, Egyptian, Armenian etc. Their members are Ukrainian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Coptic Catholics etc. They are not Roman Catholics. That is why it is wrong to lump us all together and call everyone in communion with Rome a “Roman Catholic”.”

This is all very refreshing. It is clearly not the “same old same old”. What’s more, as Bishop Mercer writes: “Why be so anxious? The Italian line is that rules are made to be broken. He who has immediate and universal jurisdiction may yet grant all sorts of dispensations about all sorts of matters.”

We all make infallible statements. Modifying them is called penitence. Here is one very obvious modification. Those ordained under the Ordinariate would date their ordination as priests, as they always have done, from their original day of ordination. And another: without detriment to the principle of celibacy, there would be some Anglican Catholic parishes, in communion with Rome, with a married priest at the centre. Thus, as there are in the East, there would be some Catholic parishes in the West for whom either celibacy or marriage would be possible in the ministry. Both positions would be tenable.

What accounts for these modifications? We know that the Apostolic Constitution was created with Pope Benedict’s appraisal of Anglicanism in mind. He clearly saw that there was something to be nurtured and shared. Dare we say that he has seen in the principle of comprehensiveness a genuine element of the Christian tradition? Surprisingly, it was the Royal Supremacy which, holding the ring between contesting parties, gave us this principle – that no one party should make the position of any other party untenable. Now, while Anglicanism has imploded, nevertheless the principal remains an integral part of our Anglican heritage and patrimony. The Apostolic Constitution rescues this principal of Comprehensiveness from the wreckage of Anglicanism and reapplies it. The celibate and the married priest are both affirmed as gifts to the church with no detriment to either system, and this is combined with a cautious acknowledgement of some Anglican orders. With all the modern Anglican chaos, who would have thought it! There is no reversal of practice. Rather an enlargement, giving due weight to the need not to make any one person‟s legitimate position untenable. Bishop Mercer asks, “Who said this? – “Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible, is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church. “– Billy Graham, John Wesley, Martin Luther, of an evangelical Anglican like John Stott of All Souls, Langham Place, London? No! Pope Benedict XVI.

“It is no wonder that the Pope appeals more and more to evangelical Christians, to Anglicans and to the Orthodox. Some of us have been deceived by the liberal media or even by liberal Roman Catholics into writing him off as “the rottweiler cardinal” or “the panzer cardinal”. But like another elderly pope who came to office late in life, John XXIII, this man is full of astonishing surprises…he wants us all to know and love the bible as he does.”

Of course we have anxieties. But like most anxieties they don’t respond to either reason or factual information. Bishop Mercer tells us…“You will not have to write an exam on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, RC laity don’t. Why should you? Your parish council will not have to send donations to Rome. RC parishes don’t. Why should yours? You will not have to submit to a bully. Cardinal Ratzinger and two of his staff gave me over an hour of their time in Rome, in 1985 when we talked of unity. He is the gentlest, most courteous of men, a skilled listener. Conversely, you can still treasure our Prayer Book catechism which serves a different purpose from the Roman one. Ours is a preparation for those hoping to be confirmed. The Roman one is a fat compendium of theology to be referred to, stuffed full of Bible, ancient authors and quotations from saintly people.

“As to “concessions”, so to speak, it is Rome which has made the most. We retain our identity and our Anglican heritage or patrimony; our Prayer Book tradition of worship, our hymns and music; our married clergy; our esteemed place for the laity…. Our only disappointment is no married bishops. After all, St. Peter, the first Pope had a wife (Matthew 8:14. 1Corinthians 9:5). However, Rome’s reason is impeccable. The rapprochement of Eastern Christianity and Western, the two lungs of the one Church, is what matters most, and as yet it is the Orthodox who cannot stomach the thought of married bishops. And by the way, the word “Ordinary” is a Prayer Book one found in the ordination service, and there meaning “bishop”. “Will you reverently obey your Ordinary unto whom is given the charge and government over you?”

Note: Quotations from Bishop Mercer’s article originally written for the magazine of the Congregation of St. Athanasius and S Theodore, Powys, UK, called The Traditional Anglican.

By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.  With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer.  Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith."

The Catechism then goes on to present some of the features of a truly Catholic faith, and we are able to appreciate some of the characteristics that take our faith to new heights, enabling us to recognize the value of communion with the divine institution wherein we discover the fullness of the faith.  One of these elements is the appeal to the Communion of Saints for examples of a proper faith.  The patriarch Abraham is identified as the Scriptural model of obedience, and the Blessed Virgin Mary is identified as the "most perfect embodiment" of the obedience of faith (144).  These two examples ought bring to mind that the Catholic devotion to the Communion of Saints is not (as is so often claimed) making them equal with God, but just the opposite.  The Saints are our exemplars of faith in Almighty God and salvation through His Son Jesus Christ, particularly the Blessed Virgin as she is the "purest realization of faith (149)."

Another teaching of the Catechism that flies in the face of those who claim that the Catholic Church denies salvation by grace through faith is to be found explicitly at the point where the characteristics of faith are presented.  We are taught that the belief of the Catholic Church regarding faith is:

"Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him.  Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and "makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth (153).

We also see the assertion, "Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit (154)."  I am keenly aware that this site is visited predominantly by Anglicans and Catholics whom you would think are not strangers to the Catholic doctrine of faith.  However, I have become aware of late that even among Anglican clergy there are some, I pray not many, who deny the Catholic Church teaches the Gospel of grace.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Finally, I would like to point out the prominence given to another aspect of our faith: its "oneness."  Here the Catechism quotes St. Irenaeus of Lyon:

We guard with care the faith that we have received from the Church, for without ceasing, under the action of God's Spirit, this deposit of great price, as in an excellent vessel, is constantly being renewed and causes the very vessel that contains it to be renewed (175).

There is, and only can be, one faith (see my post of several months ago, "What One Is").  This would not even be denied by those who desire to remain separated from the One Vessel that has, from the beginning, held the "deposit of great price."  However, one must understand that, if there is truly one faith, it will only be found in one vessel.  If there are other vessels, what they contain is only a portion (greater or lesser) of that which was contained in the One Vessel.  Consequently, to obtain the fullness of the faith one must go to the One Vessel that is the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome.  This communion is not merely important, it is not merely desirable, it is not merely beneficial, it is a necessity of one's faith — and anything else is a deprivation.  May the "constant renewal" of this vessel be the addition of all faithful Anglicans.

Oremus.

Exaudi, Christe.  Ecclesiae Sancta Dei, supra regnorum fines nectenti animas: salus perpetua!  Redemptor mundi, tu illam adjuva.  Sancta Maria, tu illam adjuva.  Sancta Joseph, tu illam adjuva.  Sancte Michael, tu illam adjuva.  Amen.

Let us pray.

Hear, O Christ.  We ask for the Holy Church of God, which unites souls beyond the borders of kingdoms: perpetual blessings!  Redeemer of the world, come to her aid.  Holy Mary, come to her aid.  Saint Joseph, come to her aid.  Saint Michael, come to her aid.  Amen.

As Anglicans prepare to enter into full communion by way of Anglicanorum coetibus, many have been studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and so have been immersed in the richness of our faith.  Others, however, are considering a rejection of Anglicanorum coetibus because they disagree with the Church’s teaching about one thing or another.  Of course, people are always free to accept or reject – no one will ever be forced into communion with the Holy See.  But it’s essential, I believe, that in making such a decision – which can have eternal consequences – people need to have an understanding of the actual doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church.

Where to begin?  Perhaps with the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  This doctrine seems to be a red flag to some people.  I’ve heard the assertion that it represents “an unhealthy emphasis upon the maiden from Nazareth,” and that it’s a “Romish addition to the Faith.”  Let’s have a look at it.  This won’t be an exhaustive study, but it may help bring some clarity to the place of the Blessed Virgin Mary in God’s plan for our salvation.

First, it probably doesn’t need to be stated (but I will anyway!) what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not.  It doesn’t refer to the conception of Christ in the womb of Mary, nor does it mean that Mary was somehow miraculously conceived.  Mary was conceived in the normal way as the natural fruit of the marriage of Ss. Joachim and Anne, but at the moment of her conception she was preserved from original sin and its stain.  As we know, the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve, became their bitter legacy to us.  Original sin deprives us of sanctifying grace, and the stain of original sin corrupts our human nature.  By God’s grace, given at the moment of Mary’s conception, she was preserved from these defects, and so from the first instant of her existence Mary had the fullness of sanctifying grace, and was unburdened by the corrupt nature caused by original sin.  In this way, Mary becomes a “second Eve,” conceived in the same state of original purity as God intended for mankind.

Why would God do this?  We state the reason every time we say the Creed.  When we profess that Jesus Christ “was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,” we’re proclaiming that God took human flesh upon Himself.  And from whom did He take that flesh?  From Mary.  So the question must be asked: would God – who can have no part in sin – take upon Himself that which was fallen, stained and corrupt?  The answer is apparent: of course He wouldn't.  So, as we can see already, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has as much to do with our Lord Jesus Christ and His Incarnation, as it does with the Blessed Virgin Mary.  In fact, as we explore the various Marian dogmas, we see this consistently.  What God does in and through Mary finds its ultimate purpose in Jesus Christ.

We can find a strong implicit reference to the Immaculate Conception in St. Luke 1:28.  In the original Greek text, when the archangel Gabriel is addressing the young Virgin Mary, the word used is kecharitomene, which expresses a characteristic quality of Mary; namely, that she is “full of grace.”  In some translations of scripture, Gabriel’s words are given as “highly favored one,” but that translation doesn’t capture the best and fullest meaning.  Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace,” and since the Greek has it in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was filled with grace in the past, and the effect of it continues into the present.  If we accept St. Luke’s record of the archangel’s words as being accurate, it’s apparent that the grace received by Mary didn’t come about through Gabriel’s visit; rather, she was always filled with grace.

What about the words Mary spoke in her Magnificat, when she says, “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior…”?  If she wasn’t a sinner, why would she need a Savior?  Remember, Mary was a human being, a descendant of Adam and Eve.  When she was conceived, she was certainly subject to the contracting of original sin, like all of us.  But she was preserved from it – and how so?  By grace.  Mary was redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way; that is, by anticipation.  There’s a helpful analogy which has been used by the Church to illustrate this: a man falls into a deep pit, and somebody reaches down and pulls him out.  It would be true to say that the man was “saved” from the pit.  A woman is walking by that same pit, and she’s about to fall in, but at that very moment someone reaches out and pulls her back from the edge.  She also has been “saved” from the pit.  And in fact, she didn’t even get dirty like the poor man did, who actually fell in.  God, who is outside of time, applied Christ’s saving grace to Mary before she was stained by original sin, rather like the woman in the story who didn’t get dirty because she was prevented from falling into the pit.  So yes, Mary had a Savior, and He is none other than Christ, her Son and her Lord.

Then we’ve got Romans 3:23, where St. Paul says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”  Did St. Paul mean this statement to be understood in an all-inclusive, no-one-excluded way?  Well, let’s consider.  First of all, we have to exclude Jesus Himself.  Even though He was fully man, we know He didn’t sin.  And what about a new-born baby?  If sin is the deliberate disobedience to God’s law, could we say that a little baby has committed sin?  I don’t think so.  Although St. Paul was certainly stating the truth about mankind, his purpose in writing this section of Romans wasn’t to discuss the possibility of exceptions; rather he was constructing an important argument about law and grace, justification and redemption.  If anybody wants to apply Romans 3:23 to Mary, then they’d have to apply it to babies and young children, too.

Sometimes people object to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception using this argument: if we’re saying Mary was without sin, then we’re making her equal to God, because only God is without sin.  However, we need to remember that in the beginning, Adam and Eve were created without sin, but they weren’t equal to God.  The angels were created without sin, and in fact, from Scripture we know that only some of the angels sinned – Lucifer and his friends – but that means a lot of angels never sinned.  And they certainly are not equal to God.

Tragically, after the fall of our first parents, sin became commonplace and even expected.  In fact, think about how often someone will say, after doing something wrong, “Well, I’m only human,” as though sin is perfectly natural, and somehow even defines humanity.  Actually, sin is unnatural.  We weren’t created to sin; we were created to know God, and to love Him, and to spend eternity with Him in heaven.  In Mary, because of the Immaculate Conception, we see a human being as God intends us to be.  What was maimed by the first Adam and Eve, is restored by the Second Adam and the Second Eve. 

So what about the Immaculate Conception?  It’s logical, it’s scriptural, and it’s part of God’s loving act of redemption.

1. On Wednesday of last week, a preliminary report on the recent meeting of the Anglican Church in America's House of Bishops and Executive Council was posted to The Anglo-Catholic in my name.

2. Though the reports available at the time of the formulation of the preliminary statement have since been proven accurate, due to difficulties in communication with me in outback Australia, there was some confusion, and the message published was not entirely helpful.

3. I have since had the opportunity to discuss the House of Bishops and Executive Council meeting with the chief participants and I am now satisfied that, insofar as any matters concerning the ACA's relationship to an eventual personal ordinariate in the USA are concerned, the meeting was a positive step toward meeting the TAC's commitment to pursue unity with the Catholic Church under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus.

4. The Traditional Anglican Communion is committed to seeking full communion with the Catholic Church and each of its bishops remains committed to the Petition that we formally signed and delivered to the Holy See.

5. The College of Bishops of the TAC is the only body with authority to determine the teaching of the TAC, and has officially determined that,

We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium, which we have signed together with this Letter as attesting to the faith we aspire to teach and hold.

(October 2007 Portsmouth Petition)

6. In order to maintain an absolute distinction between official announcements and the open discussion conducted on The Anglo-Catholic blog, a new section will provide links to authoritative documents, released by the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, its constituent jurisdictions, or the Catholic Church, and related to the implementation of the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Benedict XVI, Anglicanorum Coetibus. Discussion will be prohibited on this page and all subsidiary official document pages.

7. The Anglo-Catholic site has my endorsement and blessing as a trusted source of information for the Traditional Anglican Communion's quest to attain full, visible communion with the Catholic Church. While official documents are posted here, the commentary of the contributors and commenters is their own. I certainly reserve the right to disagree with any of the opinions expressed on The Anglo-Catholic.

8. Christian Campbell has done an outstanding job for the cause of the Apostolic Constitution in founding and moderating The Anglo-Catholic, and the very fine array of writers and the standard of debate attest to this. He retains my complete confidence. His integrity is not in doubt.

9. The Anglo-Catholic is not an organ of the Anglican Church in America, and never has been. It would be very unwise for any church to own a blog and allow an open policy of posting.

10. I will continue to release all official statements regarding the implementation of personal ordinariates under Anglicanorum Coetibus here on The Anglo-Catholic.

+John Hepworth
Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion

The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church.  "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.  So, in maintaining, practicing, and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.

These words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (84) illustrate, by way of practical examples, the glorious ways in which the Church should show forth Her unity, i.e., "remain always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread…"  Please note my emphasis on the word "should."  I need not point out the myriad ways in which we do not show forth Her unity.  I am particularly dismayed at this point, "…there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."  How can we possibly expect unity in any aspect of the faith when there exists disunity between the bishops and the faithful?  If we can determine the source of this discord, a restoration of harmony here will inexorably lead to harmony in all other areas.  The answer as to where the discord starts is to be found in the next article (85).

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.  Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."  This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

The last statement of article 85 regarding bishops being "in communion with the successor of Peter" is the crux of the matter.  To ensure the "remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful," there must first exist a harmony between the bishop(s) and the Holy Father.  Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted a hierarchical Church, by definition such an institution requires a hierarch, and we know to whom this office was entrusted by our Savior (Matt. 16:18).  As soon as a bishop, or groups of bishops, sever their ties with the See of Peter, their pronouncements, judgments, etc., become arbitrary.  Why then should priests remain faithful to these unfaithful bishops?  Consequently, the faithful are presented with an example of those who have demonstrated an unwillingness to submit to established authority.  The faithful in turn, whether it be individually or in groups, will follow this rebellious example and begin to make capricious determinations in matters of faith, and, consequently harmony ends.  We need do nothing more than survey the saga of several groups of "Continuing" Anglicans to witness this ecclesiastical harmonic dysfunction.

The faithful bishops of the TAC made an explicit, solemn, and public appeal for communion with the Bishop of Rome in October 2007, knowing that it is an ecclesial and theological imperative to be in communion with the Vicar of Christ, and knowing that without this communion each and every one feel themselves to be free to do what is right in their own eyes.  This restoration of harmony between our bishops and the Holy Father can do nothing but foster harmony between the bishops and the faithful, enabling us to truly proclaim ourselves to be "One body, and one Spirit… called in one hope of [our] calling (Eph. 4:4)."

Thank you, faithful bishops,

"Doc"+

The second issue is that not everything in the Anglican Patrimony is consistent with union with Rome.  For example, the interminable liturgical variations among Anglicans even within the same Diocese, and the pontifications by self-appointed liturgical experts, understandable and all as it is in the context of Anglican history, must in the end give way to the acceptance of authority.  Put another way, Anglican liturgical congregationalism is not a part of the Patrimony that should be or could be brought into an Ordinariate.  Already the Holy See has made it clear that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Mass used in the Latin Rite or Rites will be authorised for use in Ordinariates.  A further Rite drawing upon the Anglican Patrimony will also be authorised.  In the end these Rites must be accepted with docility.  The freedom here is that Christians can then get on with the business of offering beautiful Masses to the glory of God, pursuing personal holiness, evangelising non-Believers, and contributing to the furtherance of a more just and peaceful world.

Finally, I note that the TAC already uses the Catechism of the Catholic Church to catechise its own members, even more evidence of its ongoing sincere commitment to corporate reunion with the Holy See.  This is excellent.  But perhaps there could also be more patience.  It is important for members of the TAC to exhibit the same patience admirably demonstrated by TAC Primate Archbishop Hepworth.  In such an atmosphere the TAC and the CDF will more easily be enabled to carefully and calmly work through the process for the implementation of the Apostolic Constitution.  The docile acceptance of authority which should be the hallmark of faithful Catholics carries with it also confidence that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to make wise decisions for the good order of the Ordinariates.  And the Ordinariates will happen for which laus Deo.

"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God…can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation.  Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God (Gen. 1:27)."

Referring to the Vatican I document, Dei Filius, and the Vatican II document, Dei Verbum, the Catechism here speaks to the ability of man to know God by way of human reason.  We must understand that God has manifested Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ, and subsequently Jesus Christ manifests Himself to the world through the Holy Spirit by means of His Body, the Church.  Consequently, we should be able to know the Church by human reason, but alas, due to what the Catechism calls "historical conditions (37)" we find ourselves beset by many difficulties that preclude many from understanding by reason alone.  Citing Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, the Catechism explains,

For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation.  The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequence of original sin.  So, it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least questionable.

Our difficulty in understanding fully the relationship between God and man, particularly in the context of the Church through which God directly communicates His means of grace to His people, should give us pause to ponder how we can know this truth.  The answer to this dilemma is our "self-surrender" to the outward confirmation of perceived truth, and the "abnegation" of our pride in thinking we are the arbiters of truth.  Any truth concerning God and His Church must be determined by both an inward understanding of the proposition and its outward confirmation.  This outward confirmation must come from the Church.  No individual can claim a "truth" regarding the Church if the Church herself denies this "truth."  In short, one cannot have a "salad-bar" Catholicism, e.g., "I'll take this because I like it, but I won't take that because I don't…"

May the Most Holy Trinity bless and keep you,

"Doc"+

Let us begin with the opening section of the Catechism which deals with what we believe as Christians, presented in the beginning of our Creed when, at almost every Holy Mass, we recite, "I believe…"  This is the statement of our Faith, and "Faith is man's response to God… (CCC 26)."  We respond to God because we all have an innate desire for God.  CCC 27 states,

The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to Himself.  Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for…

All Christians should agree with every part of this statement.  However, as Catholic Christians we must also realize that this desire for God is also intimately related to our understanding of the institution of the Church and that unity which is one of her distinctive marks.  This desire is now coming to fruition in our endeavor to restore communion with the Holy Father, who is the focal point of the Church's unity on earth.  We must understand that to truly show God to the world, it is necessary to do so in unity.  This thought is articulated in the Catechism's citation of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes (Joy and Hope).

[W]hat does most to show God's presence clearly is the brotherly love of the faithful who, being all of one mind and one spirit, work together for the faith of the Gospel and present themselves as a sign of unity.

We as faithful Anglicans do so yearn for the moment when we see the realization of this true unity.

Pray for us, O holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

"Doc"+

From one of the excerpts already released, it is known that our bishops have proposed the Catechism as “the most perfect expression of the Catholic faith in the world today,” a faith which they “aspire to hold and teach.”  Some have tried to rationalize and “spin” this confession.  Perhaps the curious phrase “the most perfect expression” provides some wiggle room?  Certainly the TAC bishops could not have meant to accept the recent Marian dogmas or those of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction?

I asserted that the text of the Portsmouth Letter, along with the solemn act of signing of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium, represented the unequivocal acceptance of the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the part of the College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and further, given the teaching authority vested in the College by the TAC Concordat, that the Catechism must rightly be acknowledged as the official doctrinal statement of the entire Church.

Far from the admission of any wiggle room, the full text of the “Portsmouth Letter” makes absolutely clear that our bishops assent, not to the teaching of the Catechism generally, but to specific doctrines — indeed to those doctrines upon which all of the others hang.  The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is accepted without reservation.  The ministry of the Successor of St. Peter is confessed in terms that would be familiar to a father of the First Vatican Council!

Not only did the TAC bishops assembled — unanimously — approve the text of the letter to the Holy See, the entire college signed their confession in a solemn act.

[...]

And from October 2007, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has been, at least, the de facto official doctrine of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

In a dossier of materials related to the recent publication of its formal application for the implementation of the Apostolic Constitution in the United Kingdom, Fr. Ian Gray, Vicar General of TTAC, has released the text of a letter written by Archbishop John Hepworth, to the clergy of the province.  In this letter, the Primate makes very clear the doctrinal position of the TAC.

5. It would be very wise to become familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is the official doctrinal statement of our College of Bishops, and therefore of our Communion. We are not a Communion in which Synods vote on doctrine. The Church of England does quite enough of that.

In speaking with bishops and other clergy from provinces around the TAC, it is my understanding that neither my analysis nor the Primate's statement would be considered especially controversial.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church has long been a de facto standard for teaching in the Communion, and its official adoption by the College of Bishops in Portsmouth did not come as a great surprise.  This act has been accepted as definitive and it has been embraced by the clergy and faithful of many TAC provinces.  Unfortunately, here in North America, due to an apparent hesitation on the part of some bishops to boldly propose the Catechism to their flocks, there is a somewhat lesser degree of unanimity on this point, but make no mistake about it: the Catechism of the Catholic Church is "the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith" in the Traditional Anglican Communion and no deacon, priest, or bishop has the right to teach anything which is contrary to the essential doctrines contained therein.

Going further, I would argue that, with the provinces of the TAC poised to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church under the Holy Father's recent Apostolic Constitution, it is entirely inadequate that a bishop himself simply refrain from teaching doctrines opposed to this agreed standard, but that the Holy See, the members of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and the entire Catholic faithful throughout the world must be assured of his faithfulness made manifest by a willingness to proclaim the fullness of truth as expressed in the Catechism.  A bishop unwilling to openly embrace the Catechism of the Catholic Church is unfaithful to his solemn oath, either as sworn in Portsmouth in October of 2007 or subsequently at the moment of his episcopal consecration, unfit for his office, and should resign his see immediately.

It is only reasonable that those who now hold the office of teaching, governing, and sanctifying in the Traditional Anglican Communion be held to a rigorous standard.  If a bishop is unwilling to defend the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in his present circumstances, how can Holy Church be assured that he will do so in the fullness of her communion?