But Splintered Sunrise, prompted by an article in The Tablet, has done an admirable job putting the event — a pointed disagreement between Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham and Bishop Keith Newton of Richborough — into its proper perspective, echoing concerns that we have expressed here on The Anglo-Catholic since last November.

Unfortunately, there are troubling signs that this sort of local episcopal interference is not restricted to England and Wales.  Similar posturing seems to be occurring in North America as well.  Of course, on this side of the pond, the bishops are not beholden to ARCIC and ecumenical dialogue with the Established Church, but there prevails in some quarters a spirit of resistance to unwelcome dictates from the CDF (as they are perceived) and a desire to decelerate and compromise the process of implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus insofar as might be possible (if only out of ignorance and a prejudicial impulse that prevents some bishops from thinking creatively).  While the resistance in the United States and Canada is not as organized — or yet as bold — as in the UK (most bishops still seemingly oblivious to the Apostolic Constitution and its ramifications), the Holy Office and the Holy Father would do well to be on guard against it.

* * *

The gist of the thing is that some wiseacre asked whether, under the Ordinariate, married men could be ordained. [Bishop Malcolm McMahon's] short answer was no. Well, he said, married Anglican priests could be ordained as Catholic, and this might be stretched to married ordinands. But married laymen becoming Ordinariate priests, absolutely not. No way, Pedro. Married priests in the Ordinariate would be a stopgap measure and would naturally die out.

At this point, Anglo-Catholic Bishop Keith Newton of Richborough made a most unhelpful intervention. Check this out:

This was, however, challenged by Bishop Newton, who after the meeting questioned whether Bishop McMahon had the authority to pronounce on the issue. The Bishop of Richborough said: “I want to hear what the CDF has to say; they are in charge of the ordinariate, not Bishop McMahon.”

Ouch! And it only got worse, as +Keith was inconsiderate enough to actually quote what Anglicanorum coetibus had to say on the matter:

§ 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

That seems fairly straightforward to me. Celibacy will be the norm for entrants to the priesthood, but exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis contingent on the approval of the Holy See. So married laymen may be admitted as candidates if the Ordinary can make a strong enough case for the individual concerned; what we’re not sure about is just how liberally the CDF would interpret that in the future. So, Keith was right and Malcolm was wrong. QED.

I do like, though, this bit at the end:

Bishop McMahon replied that while [Newton's] reading was “correct”, he stood by his earlier answer.

At which point you slap your forehead. This is the sort of thing that could lead poorly informed observers to draw the erroneous conclusion that the Bishops’ Conference is not very keen on the Ordinariate. Malcolm had better start pulling his socks.

The Holy Father in Fatima

It is very good to welcome a Cistercian, Brother Stephen Treat, as a fellow blogger on this site.  Very good, too, that his first post concerns Anglicanorum Coetibus.  He refers to a recent interview with Bishop Farrell.  I have read that entire interview, and find one part of it a little problematic.  I have written about this in my own Ancient Richbrough blog, but thought it worth reproducing it here in the hope that Br Stephen or others might be able to put me right if I misunderstand Bishop Farrell or Anglicanorum Coetibus.

So, here goes, a slightly enlarged version of my other blog:

It is perhaps foolhardy of me to question a statement made by a Catholic Bishop on "Anglicanorum Coetibus," but I am not sure that Bishop Farrell has given an exactly correct impression of that document in an interview published by ZENIT (the Catholic News Agency).

He says, inter alia,  "A particular problem of discernment arises when it is a question of groups.  Not all groups have the same 'ecclesial consistency.'  In the end, it is up to the episcopal conference of a country or region to study well what can and what must be done."

Now that is not how I read Anglicanorum Coetibus. I commented on the original ZENIT article, but have had no response, so I raise the matter again here in the hope that others can put me right.

This is what is said in Anglicanorum Coetibus:

Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference.

Now that contrasts with Bishop Farrell's "In the end it is up to the episcopal conference… to study well what can and what must be done."  This reads rather as though the final decision rests with the local episcopal conference.  But in fact it is the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith (CDF) which is the deciding body. Of course local conferences of bishops will be consulted and will advise, but the whole point of the Ordinariate (unless I am badly mistaken) is that its future does not lie with the national bishops' conference.

Possibly I am misreading or misinterpreting what Bishop Farrell says, but since he holds such an important role as Secretary of the Vatican's Unity Council, I do hope this can be clarified.  Certainly he seems to think that most groups which would call themselves "Traditionalist" would be from the Evangelical rather than the Anglo-Catholic wing of our church.  He says, "What we should remember is that what some call 'traditionalist Anglicans' usually are of the evangelical part of the Anglican Communion — hence, far from the Catholic Church in their ecclesiological convictions."  He may be right about other parts of the Anglican Communion; but it is certainly not how I see the situation in England, where the name 'traditionalist' has been applied mostly to Anglo-Catholics — and I am not aware of any other 'traditionalist' groups who would be seeking to join an Ordinariate.

His concern for Unity and his experience of the ARCIC process of course must weigh heavily on Bishop Farrell, and it must be a great sadness to him that the recent York Synod seems to have undone all that has been achieved over the past decades.  He concludes his interview saying "We will continue the ecumenical dialogue with a realism that accepts things as they are and is aware that the road ahead is long and arduous.  Knowing, however, that dialogue is a task imposed by Christ himself and sustained by the grace of the Holy Spirit, soul of the Church of Christ."

I believe and pray that the Ordinariates may have a role in that continuing conversation, and in leading many more Anglicans into the fulness of Catholic Faith and Worship.

I am in a dialogue with Archbishop Irl A. Gladfelter, CSP, the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, a group of Lutherans who have embraced the Catholic Catechism and the teaching of the Magisterium. They are humbly knocking at the door of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seeking a way into full communion. You can read about this amazing group here. I am working on a fuller story of their journey. Some have said that their smallness and placement on "the fringes" of the Lutheran community makes them less representative. I recall that those were the same comments made about the "Traditional Anglican Communion" in their early efforts. They became the prophetic vehicle the Holy Spirit used to open up an historic breakthrough.

Update from the Moderator (11:00 PM EDT):

The group calling itself the "Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church" is a very small group which seems historically to have had some troubling episcopi vagantes connections.  However, it appears to have originated with some Catholic-minded pastors and laypeople of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod; to the extent that the group, however obscure, seeks to enter into the full communion of the Holy See, we unreservedly support their ambition.

OTTAWA – Toronto's Archbishop Thomas Collins is throwing out the welcome mat for all Anglicans in Canada who wish to become Catholic.

The archbishop has been named the liaison for groups of Anglicans who might want to avail themselves of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus (AC). The AC offers a special structure so Anglicans can join the Roman Catholic Church corporately, while retaining aspects of their identity and patrimony, such as their liturgy.

“This is not an initiative by the Catholic Church,” said Collins. “It’s a response to groups of Anglicans that have indicated an interest in doing this.”

The structure is called a "personal ordinariate," modelled on the ordinariates for the military that transcend the geographical boundaries of Roman Catholic dioceses. Each ordinariate will be headed by an ordinary who may or may not be a bishop, as bishops are required to be celibate. The Pope recognized that many Anglican clergy are married and has allowed for married priests and ordinaries on a case-by-case basis.

Collins was appointed liaison by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops' Permanent Council. He said his first task is to start getting in touch with anyone who is interested in responding to the Holy Father’s document.

Collins is trying to get a sense of how many might be interested in the ordinariate. He said Canada is a little further behind other countries in the process, as the AC was announced during the bishops' plenary meeting last October, but was not published until November.

While Collins will be the point-man in Canada, he said the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal William Levada will be guiding the complex process of bringing ordinariates into being.

I must admit that I know little of Bishop Koch, but a Google search did turn up a few promising signs.  In his July 2009 newsletter to priests, the bishop was critical of an unqualified acceptance of the reforms conducted in the name of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

Many people have signed a petition for the unqualified acceptance of the council.  Right from the start, the expression "unqualified acceptance" irritates me because I don’t know anyone — myself included — to whom it would apply.  A few arbitrarily chosen examples will suffice:

– The council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy.  On the contrary, it emphasized that in the Roman Rite, apart from exceptional cases, the use of the Latin language must be maintained.  Who among the vocal defenders of the council wishes "unqualified acceptance" of that?

– The council declared that the Church regards Gregorian Chant as the "music proper to the Roman Rite," and that it must therefore "be given primary place."  In how many parishes is this implemented "without qualification?"

– The council expressly requested that governmental authorities voluntarily give up those rights to participation in the selection of bishops, that had arisen over the course of time.  Which defender of the council advocates "without qualification" for that?

– The council described the fundamental nature of the liturgy as the celebration the paschal mystery and the eucharistic sacrifice as "the completion of the work of our salvation."  How can that be reconciled with my experience, made in many different parishes, that the sacrificial understanding of the Mass has been completely eliminated from the liturgical language and the Mass is now understood only as a meal or "the breaking of bread?"  In what way can one justify this profound change by reference to the council?

In July 2007, Bishop Koch also defended a document published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ("Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church") which clarified the expression of "subsistit in" in the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium.  While acknowledging that the Church's teaching might be offensive to Protestants (and even some Catholics who wrongly have become accustomed to refer to Protestant communities as "churches"), he upheld the CDF clarification.

The new Vatican document, he said, is looking at the term in a "strictly theological" way, explaining that if the Catholic Church believes apostolic succession and valid sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, are essential aspects of the church established by Christ it cannot recognize as "church" those communities who do not have them.

Bishop Koch also said the document and reactions to it underline a clear difference in the Catholic and Orthodox ecumenical goal and the ecumenical goal of the Protestants.

Do our readers have anything to share about Bishop Koch?  If Mr. Tornielli is correct and the Bishop of Basel gets the PCPCU nod, what does this portend for the advancement of true ecumenism and Christian unity?

Bishop Stephen Strawn noted that the meeting in Rome had been considerably shorter than expected.  The TAC bishops were under the impression that were scheduled for a day-long consultation with CDF officials, but the delegation was forced to quickly assess which questions seemed most pressing, addressing those in the short time that was allotted by their hosts.  Nonetheless, several key questions were discussed in Rome and the bishop provided a summary of each.

The bishop reported that clergy desiring to enter the anticipated personal ordinariate will be asked to submit a dossier including pertinent personal information.  A priest intending to lead his parish into the ordinariate will be required to submit a parish profile (containing vital statistics similar to those reported in a typical annual parochial report and disclosure of any anticipated difficulties).  These documents are to be submitted directly to the CDF; however, vetting of all clerics prior to ordination and incardination into an ordinariate will be the responsibility of the ordinary.

While the House of Bishops had requested the right to appoint a provisional Governing Council to deliberate and submit a terna for the appointment of the first ordinary, "it was decided that the initial appointments would be made by the Holy Father in consultation with those desiring to enter the ordinariate."  Subsequent ordinaries will be elected in accordance with the provisions of Anglicanorum Coetibus and its Complementary Norms.

Also discussed were the rites to be employed for the admission of Anglican groups into the full communion of the Catholic Church via the personal ordinariates.  Since the Apostolic Constitution was conceived with the purpose of reconciling groups of Anglicans in a corporate context, it seems appropriate that such an action be accomplished in a liturgical setting.  The reception liturgy will most likely consist of a Profession of Faith (the Apostles' Creed), a General Confession and Absolution (to be made by all present and recognizing the complicity on both sides in the schism between Canterbury and Rome), and Chrismation (in view of the fact that not all Anglican bishops chrismate during the confirmation rite).

The bishop also spoke about the transition plan devised by the ACA HOB, a scheme which Archbishop Hepworth has now approved.  The plan would provide for a temporary jurisdiction designed to collect those parishes which are already able to make a commitment to the anticipated personal ordinariate.  The plan requests that the Primate create this "Peculiar" or "Patrimony" and place it under the supervision of an ACA bishop.  [Ed. The Primate has indicated that this new jurisdiction will be constituted as a TAC "province in formation," separate from the Anglican Church in America.]  Clergy will be transferred to this Peculiar by means of letters dimissory; the desire for transfer is to be signaled in writing.  Likewise, parishes may request transfer in accordance with their by-laws.  Those in the process of discernment will be able to transfer to the Peculiar until such time as a personal ordinariate is canonically erected.  At that time, the Peculiar will cease to function and those electing not to enter the ordinariate will revert to the jurisdiction of their local ACA diocese.  Future applications for membership in the ordinariate would then be coordinated by the ordinariate itself.

The bishops believe that this scheme is adequate to attend to the pastoral needs of all.  Bishop Strawn noted that the offer of the Apostolic Constitution is open-ended; it will be important that those who find themselves in a discernment process are provided pastoral care and instruction so as to properly form their consciences.  Indeed, one of the questions asked during the session was what materials are available to instruct those who are, as of yet, undecided.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as a comparative study of the CCC and the Catechism and Offices of Instruction contained in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (compiled by Fr. Bartholomew Ryan and found on the parish web site of St. Dunstan's Anglican Church), were commended to the delegates.

The bishop offered time for questions and comments following his presentation.  There were very few of either as the bishop's presentation was very thorough.

The tenor of the entire synod was upbeat and the love between clergy and the lay delegates was much in evidence.  It seems that many clergy are on board with the commitment of the ACA to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church under the terms of the recent Apostolic Constitution.  Some still have concerns, not so much from their own hesitations, but out of pastoral sensitivities.  All seem aware that the proposed "conversion" will be a monumental and life-changing event for everyone involved.  The bishop acknowledged that very strong relationships have been forged between many in the diocese, and that, in some ways, these relationships may well be altered.  As a result, there will undoubtedly be some pain.  The bishop prayed that the transition may be marked by grace and that all would continue to pray the Holy Spirit to guide each and everyone along the path in which He would have them go.

ANGLICAN USE ORDINARIATES AND ECUMENISM

Bishop Peter J Elliott

Will establishing Anglican Use Ordinariates in Communion with Rome harm Anglican-Catholic ecumenical relations? This is a speculative question, because it involves the future, but it is important to suggest some answers.

I would argue that the Ordinariates may well improve and stabilize ecumenical relations between Anglicans and Catholics. Notwithstanding the spirit of Christian charity, abiding friendships and common cause that brings us together tonight, there is no use pretending that ecumenical relations between our respective communities have not already suffered harm in recent years. That situation has occasioned the papal offer to some Anglicans, that they might find a special place within the Catholic Church. In that perspective, permit me to begin with a somewhat painful personal memory that may at least help elucidate my opinion.

Forty years ago, my tutor at Oxford was Fr Ted Yarnold, a notable Jesuit Patristics scholar. He later became one of the key theologians in developing closer Anglican-Catholic relations. As one of the master minds in the projects of ARCIC, he devoted the last decades of his life to the cause of working to develop closer ecumenical relations between Anglicans and Catholics, a task he embraced with enthusiasm and joy.

The last time I met Fr. Ted was a few years after the 1992 General Synod decision to ordain women in England.  Back in Oxford for a short visit, I bumped into him in St Giles, near Pusey House. There had not been much contact between us since he had visited Melbourne to lead a most enjoyable Ecumenical Conference in 1982, at which Archbishop Frank Woods shone.  But now I encountered a man who was deeply hurt, even angry. As I recall our somewhat disturbing conversation, Fr. Ted asserted that it was the Anglicans who had broken ecumenical relations by a unilateral act, that is, by approving the ordination of women to priesthood. What was the use of all the hard work he had put into ARCIC?  For him, Anglican-Catholic relations had reached a stalemate.

Fr. Ted did not live to see Anglicanorum coetibus, the Apostolic Constitution whereby Pope Benedict has ended that stalemate and we might hope even opened a way to develop better relations. It is necessary to set out the context for the papal offer, familiar as this may be to some here present.

The Context of Anglicanorum Coetibus

After the 1992 decision in England, traditional Anglicans who objected in conscience to the ordination of women requested and were given pastoral provisions in the two Provinces in England. This took the form of the independent Episcopal oversight of “flying bishops” directly subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury. These bishops minister in the parishes where women clergy are not accepted, usually under the umbrella of Forward in Faith. There has also been a proposal to set up a Third Province for these parishes. This seems to have been set aside.

However, in Australia nothing was done for these people. They were and are expected to accept what is legislated or find their own solutions. Here the ordination of women had already moved further ahead and has now entered its final phase with the ordination of two women as bishops, in Perth and Melbourne. Soon that step will be possible in the United Kingdom.

These events have encouraged various Anglican clergy and laity to become Catholics of the Roman Rite, or to enter Eastern Orthodox Churches. Some traditional Anglicans have entered the small breakaway Anglican bodies that had already been established at the time of the first American ordinations of women. Others have held on within the Anglican Communion, waiting to see what would happen next, organising themselves under “Forward in Faith”. These latter groups have become dejected when frank and consistent official cautions from Rome were set aside in favour of the ordination of women to the episcopate. Other matters have also exacerbated their concerns, particularly what they see as a breakdown in moral teaching and sacramental discipline.

Across this spectrum, groups of Anglicans (“Anglicanorum coetus”) from within the Anglican Communion and from a separate body, the Traditional Anglican Communion, appealed to the Pope for help. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was entrusted with the matter. After much consultation, Pope Benedict responded with the practical provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, published with Complementary Norms on November 4th  2009.

The context of the papal document shows that the Holy Father’s offer is not an aggressive initiative, absurdly described as “parking a panzer tank on the lawn of Lambeth Palace”. He only exercised his pastoral prerogative, which, whether it is recognised by others or not, does have direct historical relevance in this particular situation. Until the acts of Henry VIII and the Settlement of Elizabeth I determined otherwise, the Church in England was in communion with Rome. All Popes ever since have regarded Anglicans with pastoral solicitude.

Therefore Anglicans should not have been surprised when Pope Benedict XVI reached out to those Anglicans who formally appealed to him, Anglicans who have always looked to Rome. In recent years, these men and women have suffered much and received little, finding themselves isolated in what they see as an unbearable situation with no place for them in the future. As they have told me, they believe that the current trends within Anglicanism are not Anglican, at least, as they understand Anglicanism within the apostolic and patristic traditions of the Oxford Movement and its high church pre-history.

In such a complex situation we all need to respect the religious conscience of others, the right to freedom of conscience, its need to be informed when making choices and decisions. At the same time we also need to beware of triumphalism into which all of us can fall. Some Catholics and traditional Anglicans have been offended by the blithe way some Anglicans in responsible positions have dismissed those intending to enter the Ordinariate as trouble makers, the “disaffected”, or even cranks whose departure across the new Tiber bridge will be no loss to Anglicanism. On the other hand, some Anglicans have been offended by media stunts, or enthusiastic outbursts and exaggerations on the part of a few commentators, implying that vast numbers are about to march across this bridge. Current indications in this country are modest. Some have also made it clear that they would prefer not to enter an Ordinariate, at least at this stage. The transition will be more significant in the United Kingdom and in some regions in Africa and India.

At the same time we are all aware that the Anglican Communion faces another more significant challenge. A large body of classical Evangelical Anglicans in conscience cannot accept the prevailing trends of the wider Anglican Communion, particularly what they see as a shift away from biblical morality and due Church order. They are well organised, as we saw before the last Lambeth Conference. They are making their own plans and they will take steps in their own time. I cannot speak for them and I do not know if anyone here tonight can speak for them. I hope that they will also be accorded the respect for conscience that should be given to those traditional Anglicans who choose to return to full communion with Rome within the personal Ordinariates.

What is an “Ordinariate”?

At this point it is important to clarify what this personal Ordinariate is. The Pope is not setting up some new independent Anglican Church under Rome. The Ordinariates will not constitute a kind of Uniate Anglican Church. The Orthodox use that term, “uniate”, and I notice that some Anglicans have taken it up, but it is offensive to Catholics, especially Eastern Rite Catholics. Yet the Eastern Catholics may help us understand the new structure offered to Anglicans.

Within the Catholic Church and in full accord with all her teachings, the Eastern Catholic Churches enjoy autonomy, their own code of canon law, their own cultural, spiritual and liturgical traditions. Their full communion with Rome in practices protects their autonomy and assures them of stability.  Outside their own national territories they are organised in the form of special dioceses, which may be known as “Eparchies”. This is how they maintain their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions when they provide pastoral care for members who emigrate to other lands. These Eastern Rite dioceses cover a nation, province or region, coterminous with the existing dioceses of the Roman Rite, and even other Eastern Rite structures.

In Australia four Eastern Rites exercise ordinary jurisdiction over their own subjects within the Catholic Church: Ukrainian Greek Catholics (Byzantine Rite), Melchite Catholics (Middle Eastern Byzantine Rite), Chaldean Catholics (Iraq, Chaldean Rite) and Maronites (Lebanese) Catholics of Syrian Rite). Their bishops are members of the Episcopal Conference alongside the bishops of the Roman Rite. They would remind anyone of ecumenical sensitivity that they must not be described as “Roman Catholics”, a term which may only be applied to Catholics who are members of the Roman Rite, the majority of Catholics.

I have compared the Ordinariate envisaged for former Anglicans to the Eparchy, but only in an effort to explain to interested Anglicans what kind of structure and community is set out in Anglicanorum Coetibus. Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has recently warned that this comparison should not be taken too far.  An Ordinariate is not a Rite, as are the Eastern Catholic Churches. It will be a part of the Roman Rite, like a Military Ordinariate where a bishop has jurisdiction over members of the Armed Forces and their families.  Yet the kind of Ordinariate envisaged for former Anglicans will have a much clearer identity and distinctive ethos than a Military Ordinariate.

We should therefore avoid referring to an Anglican Rite Ordinariate and speak rather of a Personal Ordinariate within the Roman Rite with the liturgical privilege of an “Anglican Use”. This refers to distinctive liturgical privileges, a variation of the two forms of the Roman Rite. Such an “Anglican Use” will no doubt incorporate elements from the Pre-Reformation Sarum Use and the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer. But it is also envisaged that the very “ethos” of these communities will be their Anglican heritage of theology, culture, spirituality etc. In this sense there is another interesting parallel within the Roman Rite, the Personal Prelature of the Holy Cross, Opus Dei. Here associated clergy and laity in many countries come under the spiritual jurisdiction of their own bishop, the prelate, yet at the same time remaining members of the dioceses and parishes of the wider Church.

How this new and unique structure will work out is yet to be seen. But the practical planning is under way. The formal requests of groups of Anglicans for Ordinariates are being received in Rome. From time to time you will see these requests announced in the Press. They are being made by groups of bishops in the Traditional Anglican Communion, some of whom have signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a sign of their assent to the magisterium. But the Forward in Faith groups are also involved and their role will be axiomatic in the United Kingdom and Australia.  In due course a process of sacramental reconciliation will be established and then the structures will take shape.

At the same time there is another set of groups and individuals who are not openly associated with these circles. These men and women are revealing great interest in the Ordinariate, but they often request strict confidentiality. I regret to say that some isolated clergy are obliged to act with great discretion because they feel intimidated by church authorities. This will change once the Ordinariates are in place, with their own churches, councils and pastoral works. The doors will remain open for any Anglican who in conscience chooses to become a Catholic, while maintaining a distinctive Anglican heritage. Of course all other Catholics will be free to worship and receive the sacraments in Ordinariate churches, as is the case across the variety of Rites within the Church.

An Ecumenical Question

The papal project raises a question about the nature and future of Ecumenism. By the papal offer to Anglicans, has the Catholic Church defined ecumenical relations with other Churches and ecclesial communities in terms of a “Return Ecumenism”?  By Return Ecumenism we mean that the goal of ecumenical relations is envisaged as the final return of all Christians to communion with Rome. Return Ecumenism is contrasted with “Convergence Ecumenism”, a vision or dream many Christians have of an emerging “Great Church of the Future”, a Church that will be formed by way of the gradual convergence of all traditions.

Let me suggest that the possibility of Convergence Ecumenism and a Great Church of the Future is more remote now, not because of this papal project, rather because of the very factors that have brought about that project. The convergence for a future Great Church is now being defined by those same factors, determined by what might be described as a kind of broadly inclusive liberal Protestant Christianity. But, it could be argued that, far from being wide, the ground for convergence is now narrowed. It is restricted only to those who understand Christianity basically in terms of Twentieth Century liberal theologies or at least those with a commitment to Enlightenment modernity, reflected for example in what is called “Affirming Catholicism”. But can this be the means of synthesising and uniting deeper Western and Eastern Catholic and Reformation traditions of theology, worship, spirituality etc.?

However, while I raise that question, it is not for me to speculate on the feasibility of such a way of convergence. It has nothing in common with the Church of which I am a bishop. Its dream may still have some adherents within the Catholic Church, but only within the Roman Rite and only in some countries. These people are vocal, but their numbers dwindle because they are ageing. They do not play a significant role in the Church of today. So let me indicate current trends in the Catholic Church.

World Youth Day in Sydney 2008 was not some future indication. It marks what is happening now, the rise of what is being called “evangelical Catholicism”, traditional and orthodox in content yet complex, lively and flexible in its range of spiritualities and movements. Nor is this a shift away into spiritualised religion. The global multi-ethnic Church is engaged with the world, actively sharing in Christ’s work of Redemption as the Second Vatican Council mandated. This Church is animated by the vision and call of John Paul II for a New Evangelisation in a new Millennium. This is being carried forward by the creative genius of his successor, Benedict XVI.

To grasp what motivates the Pope I would recommend Ratzinger’s Faith, the Theology of Benedict XVI by Tracey Rowland (Oxford University Press 2008). This book is also a key to how he understands Anglicans and why he wishes to provide a special place for some of them within the Church he leads.

Let me return to that delicate question.  By the papal offer to Anglicans, has the Catholic Church defined ecumenical relations with other Churches and ecclesial communities in terms of a “Return Ecumenism”? If we go back to the authoritative source of Catholic ecumenism, the Second Vatican Council, we can see that this was always there. Read the second paragraph of the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, of the Second Vatican Council, and you see that the Papacy is a non-negotiable factor in the basis of Catholic Ecumenism. Fidelity to apostolic ecclesiology remains the norm. In that context, the ordination of women has jettisoned any possibility of resolving the issue of Anglican Orders, as many had hoped.

Questions are now raised as to how Anglicans really understand Orders, priesthood, episcopate. In what perspective do they understand and interpret apostolic order and ministry: is it that of the continuous tradition of East and West, or that of the Reformation, or even through some Twentieth Century ideology of gender equity?

The Catholic commitment to traditional apostolic ecclesiology means that unfortunately the beautiful expression “Sister Church”, that was so full of hope, can hardly be applied to the Anglican Communion today.[1] This is why there is a certain honesty about the more recent document authorized by Pope John Paul II Dominus Jesus. Nor should it be forgotten that these unfortunate developments come at a time when the urgent ecumenical project is to of develop closer relations between the Sisters Churches of the Orthodox East and the See of Peter.

There are many aspects and dimensions in the process of Ecumenism, and we should never define Ecumenism as “either this or that”.  There is always the need to maintain the Ecumenism of good relations, scholarly dialogue and common action that has grown up over the past fifty years. Ecumenical dialogue will continue but the characteristics of that dialogue will alter.[2] It will at least be more multi-faceted. In that changed context the theology of communion will remain axiomatic in still seeking a common understanding of the mission and nature of the Church in the world. It is in terms of communion that the Ordinariate project can best be understood, not in terms of being absorbed into some monolithic structure.

However, the multi-faceted approach to ecumenical relations between us will be enriched by the knowledge that within the Catholic Church there will be worshipping communities of men and women who still cherish what Anglicans cherish. They may interpret that culture and tradition differently to other Anglicans, but the Settlement of 1559 is open to a range of interpretations and theirs happens to be the one that can find a place within Catholicism.

We are preparing to welcome these good people. We know that they will bring much with them, that they will enrich a Church already made up of different Rites and a variety of traditions. We hope and pray that, in words dear to Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey, that these brothers and sisters in Christ may be “United but not absorbed”.

* * *

[1] Also described at Vatican II as Anglicanism’s “special place” among churches and ecclesial communities of the West. But see Address of Cardinal Kasper to the  Bishops of the Church of England, June 2006.

[2] See Address of Cardinal Kasper to the Lambeth Conference, 2008.

Mr. Johnston has been a member of OLA since 2004.  Formerly a museum director, he now serves as headmaster of The Atonement Academy, the PK-12 parish school of Our Lady of the Atonement, and, to date, the only school in the Pastoral Provision and future Ordinariate community.  Like many other cradle Catholics worshiping in Pastoral Provision congregations, he has developed an attachment to the Anglican forms of devotion.  He has attended Anglican Use Conferences in prior years and is a member of the Anglican Use Society.

In Rome with an Atonement pilgrimage group when Anglicanorum Coetibus was published, he was the first individual to file a petition with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to establish an Ordinariate for the United States under the Apostolic Constitution.  He was a contributor at the Anglicanorum Coetibus Information Day in San Antonio on December 12 of last year, and he has followed recent events closely.  Mr. Johnston holds an MPPM from Yale University and a Certificate in Catholic School Leadership from the University of Dallas.

Look for Mr. Johnston's conference preview post later this week.  During the conference itself, he will be contributing nightly reports on the proceedings.

The 2010 Anglican Use Conference, "Anglican Maps to Rome," will be held in Newark, NJ, from June 10, 2010 through June 12, 2010.  There will be four principal speakers.  The keynote address will be delivered by Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.  The other speakers will be: Dr. William Oddie, author of numerous books including The Roman Option; Dr. Anne B. Gardiner, author of Modern Faith and Freedom in John Dryden's The Panther and the Hind; and Sr. Anne, ASSP of the All Saints Sisters of the Poor who is resident in their Philadelphia house.

Here is the full text of the petition, which closely follows the model of the other TAC applications to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

* * *

The Traditional Anglican Church
Rt Revd David Moyer
Episcopal Visitor
C/O: Church of the Good Shepherd
1116 Lancaster Avenue
Rosemont, PA 19010
USA

His Eminence William Cardinal Levada
Congregazione per la Dottrina Della Fede
Palazzo del S. Uffizio
00120 Vatican City

Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension, 16th May 2010

Your Eminence,

The people of the Traditional Anglican Church in the United Kingdom (a province of the Traditional Anglican Communion) express their profound gratitude to you for your positive response of December 16th 2009 to our Letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of October 5th 2007 in which we expressed our desire to “seek a communal and ecclesial way of being Anglican Catholics in communion with the Holy See, at once treasuring the full expression of catholic faith and treasuring our tradition within which we have come to this moment.”

We have read and studied with care the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus with the Complementary Norms and the accompanying Commentary, as well as the initial statement from your Dicastery at the time of your press conference with Archbishop DiNoia.

And now, in response to your invitation to contact your Dicastery to begin the process you outline, and in accordance with our unanimous synod vote of October 2009: which reads thus:-

“That this Assembly, representing the Traditional Anglican Communion in Great Britain, offers its joyful thanks to Pope Benedict XVI for his forthcoming Apostolic Constitution allowing the corporate reunion of Anglicans with the Holy See, and requests the Primate and College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion to take the steps necessary to implement this Constitution.”

We therefore request that:

1) That the Apostolic Constitution be implemented in the United Kingdom and a Personal Ordinariate be erected.

2) That we may establish an interim Governing Council.

3) That this interim Council be directed by the Holy Father to propose a terna of names for the appointment of an Ordinary in a UK Ordinariate.

While we cannot speak for other groups of Anglicans in the United Kingdom, we shall be delighted if others apply for acceptance under the terms of Anglicanorum coetibus.

With continued expressions of appreciation for the generosity of the Holy Father in gathering the Anglicans into the fullness of Eucharistic communion, we await your instructions,

Yours sincerely in Christ,

+David L. Moyer, Episcopal Visitor
+Robert Mercer CR, retired, assistant to the Visitor

* * *

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 feel as your Chairman that I should say something about the reported trip to Rome.  As you all know, I am interested in the Ordinariate.  I had the opportunity to accompany Bishop Andrew and Bishop Keith to the Vatican to discover what was intended.  As Chairman of Forward in Faith International it was important that I was present, as FIF Australia is totally committed to it. Also many members in America and here are actively interested.  I can say nothing more about the visit.

However, I am embarrassed by the leak to the press that we had visited the Holy See. All of us have expressed an interest in the Ordinariate and so it is obviously necessary to understand exactly what is intended and how the Ordinariate will be implemented. We were certainly neither negotiating nor plotting. The leak came as a real surprise to me as it happened whilst I was abroad. As we had not informed others of our visit, who leaked it – and why – is a very serious question. It risks damage to the Church of England, and to Catholic Anglicans in particular, as well as to the forthcoming visit to the UK of the Holy Father. It also has serious ecumenical implications. To say it was malicious would seem to fit the facts.

I have a deep love for the Church of England and its Anglo-Catholic tradition in particular. The question of how it is to continue is a serious one. Though the signs in General Synod do not look good, many still hope for proper provision in line with previously made promises. Our visit must not be allowed to colour these discussions.

Others believe the Pope's offer gives a very real chance that much that is valuable in our tradition can be preserved. All need to try, carefully and prayerfully, to read the signs of the times.

+John Fulham

Is it just me, or does he seem to be suggesting that a source within the Catholic Church leaked the news of the PEVs' visit to the press?  Shortly after posting his thoughts on the leak on Saturday, Damian Thompson posted the following update.

[Update: A leading Anglo-Catholic source contacts me this morning naming several English Catholic bishops whom he thinks were in Rome for this summit. He confirms that "very few people on our side" (ie, the C of E) knew it was happening.]

Make no mistake about it: the Apostolic Constitution has powerful opponents in the Roman Curia, adversaries who are not above manipulating the situation in the press for their own advantage.  And if Damian Thompson's source is correct — that there were several English Catholic bishops present for the discussion — it does not at all seem unreasonable (based on past experiences alone) to suspect that one of them may have leaked the news.

The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, was unaware of the summit, which is likely to prove embarrassing to the Catholic Church ahead of the Pope’s visit to Britain later this year as it will rekindle fears that it is trying to poach Anglican clergy.

Who, either in the Catholic Church or in the Church of England, seriously believes that the Holy Father — much less a secret cabal in "the most powerful of the Vatican’s departments" — is trying to surreptitiously "poach" Anglican clergy?  Though the Archbishop of Canterbury feigned surprise at the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution back in October of last year, acting as if he had no idea that Anglo-Catholics might be exploring their options with Rome, it has been clearly established that +Rowan was quite aware of the developing dialogue between Forward in Faith and the Vatican authorities all along.  Even were the Church of England kept totally in the dark about such happenings, what should they care about a group of backward traditionalists they'd already cast into the outer darkness?

Reminiscent of the indignant reports that both the Anglican and English Roman Catholic bishops were kept in the dark about Anglicanorum Coetibus until the last minute — and that Lambeth Palace was snubbed by Rome — again we are informed of the irregularity that the Archbishop of Westminster was not informed of the "clandestine" meeting.  Well… that's sort of… the whole point.  And is it any wonder?

One source close to last week’s discussions said that the Anglican bishops raised concerns with the Vatican officials that there is opposition to them defecting from Catholic bishops in England.

Since the announcement of the Apostolic Constitution, the liberal ascendency in the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales has been working feverishly to contain the damage.  One should never lose sight of the fact that the single greatest contributing factor to the policy embodied in Anglicanorum Coetibus was the utter unwillingness of the vast majority of Catholic bishops, both in England and the United States, to respond pastorally and generously to the repeated, and increasingly desperate, pleas of Catholic-minded Anglicans.  Despite all of their media spin and misdirection, the liberal English Catholic bishops know full well that the Apostolic Constitution envisages a process that largely bypasses the local bishops, the episcopal conferences, and yes, even the Archbishop of Westminster!  Anglican groups are to apply directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the provision of a personal ordinariate, and the arrangements having been made largely between these two parties themselves, the local authorities will be duly consulted such they may assist, insofar as may be necessary, in the implementation of the scheme.

It's not only the liberal Catholic bishops who are spreading this nonsense.  Their ecumenical confederates in the Established Church are marching in lockstep.

A leading Anglican cleric said: “This will seriously embarrass the Pope.

“It’s a plot within the Vatican that they are desperate to keep quiet until they are ready to go public.

“Many will see this as proof that the Catholic Church is intent on poaching clergy from the Church of England despite its reassurances to the contrary.”

Do they really believe that this rubbish is going to intimidate the Holy Father or the CDF?  "Holy Father, you really oughtn't do this thing… it's just going to be a huge embarrassment, you know!  Really, don't you think you should reconsider?"

While both the CDF and the PEVs have an interest in conducting their talks in private (without the unnecessary audit of liberal opponents in the English hierarchy or the Roman Curia), the process now unfolding is hardly secret in its essentials.  The PEVs represent a constituency, dispossessed by a Church of England seemingly hellbent on its own destruction, which, in conjunction with other faithful Anglican groups, has approached the Holy See for a pastoral provision.  Despite repeated warnings (and even an ultimatum delivered by the Vatican's chief ecumenist), a genuine and productive ecumenical dialogue spanning decades seems to have been irrevocably abandoned by the modernist establishment of the Church of England.  With the Anglican Church having contemptuously rejected the admonitions of the See of Peter, and in its innovations and willful corruptions forsaken the Faith and Order of the "Catholic and Orthodox Churches of the first millennium," the Holy See has finally turned to these "continuing" coetus Anglicanorum as the last hope for reintegrating the glories of the Anglican Patrimony into the Universal Church.  Rome being perhaps overly-sensitive to supposed ecumenical priorities and cries of "poaching" in the past, the Holy Father now moves boldly — and openly — to draw into the fold a faithful remnant despised of their own.

In the end, it is not the Holy Father who will be embarrassed by the defection of priests and laity from the Church of England (however few or many there may be).  It is the faithless, modernist establishment — of both the "unapostolic" bishops of the English Catholic hierarchy and their more brazen counterparts in the Protestant Church — who will be put to shame.

The original article is at this link.

Anglican bishops in secret Vatican summit

In a move likely to raise tensions between the two Churches, a group of Church of England bishops met last week with advisers of Pope Benedict XVI to set in motion steps that would allow priests to convert to Catholicism en masse.

They are set to resign their orders in opposition to the introduction of women bishops and to lead an exodus of Anglican clerics to the Catholic Church despite Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, urging them not to leave.

It would be the first time for nearly 20 years that large numbers of priests have crossed from the Church of England to Rome, and comes only weeks ahead of a crucial General Synod debate on making women bishops.

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that bishops travelled to the Holy See last week to hold face to face discussions with senior members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the most powerful of the Vatican's departments.

The Rt Rev John Broadhurst, the Rt Rev Keith Newton and the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, the bishops of Fulham, Richborough and Ebbsfleet respectively, are understood to have informed senior Catholic officials that Church of England clergy are keen to defect to Rome.

It is the first significant response to the Papal offer made last year, which opened the doors for Anglicans to convert while retaining key elements of their tradition.

The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, was unaware of the summit, which is likely to prove embarrassing to the Catholic Church ahead of the Pope's visit to Britain later this year as it will rekindle fears that it is trying to poach Anglican clergy.

One source close to last week's discussions said that the Anglican bishops raised concerns with the Vatican officials that there is opposition to them defecting from Catholic bishops in England.

Nevertheless, they made clear they have become so disillusioned with the Church's liberal direction that they are keen to accept the Pope's offer if they can finalise plans to implement it.

The Vatican summit will raise the stakes at the General Synod in July when the Church of England's parliament will vote on how to treat traditionalist clergy opposed to the introduction of women bishops.

Although the number of priests who have openly said that they plan to defect has been small so far, the group is likely to grow if they are not given adequate provisions.

A leading Anglican cleric said: "This will seriously embarrass the Pope.

"It's a plot within the Vatican that they are desperate to keep quiet until they are ready to go public.

"Many will see this as proof that the Catholic Church is intent on poaching clergy from the Church of England despite its reassurances to the contrary."

* * *

The House of Bishops
of the
Anglican Church in America
The Traditional Anglican Communion
2365 NW 162nd Lane, Clive, Iowa, 50325

3 March 2010

William Cardinal Levada, Prefect
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican City

Your Eminence:

During this holy season, please allow us to express to you our gratitude for your positive response of 16 December 2009 to our request of October 2007 that a way may be found leading to full visible unity of traditional Anglicans with the Holy See.

The bishops of the Anglican Church in America are now meeting in Orlando, Florida, together with Father Christopher Phillips of the Pastoral Provision ("Anglican Use"), our TAC Primate, the Most Reverend John Hepworth, and Bishop John Broadhurst of Forward in Faith, United Kingdom.

We have all read and studied with care the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum cœtibus, with the Complementary Norms, and the accompanying commentary by the Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University.

In response to your invitation to contact your Dicastery to begin the process therein contemplated, we respectfully propose the following:

• That the Apostolic Constitution be implemented as soon as possible in the United States of America
• We are establishing an interim Governing Council consisting of three priests from Pastoral Provision Parishes, and three priests (or bishops) from the Anglican Church in America, and we seek your endorsement of the same.
• That this acting Governing Council be given the task and authority to propose to the Holy Father a terna for appointment of the initial Ordinary.

It is our prayer that these proposals may be of some service in setting in train the process delineated in the most welcome and gracious response of the Holy Father to our aforesaid petition.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

+Louis W. Falk (Pres.)
+John Hepworth
+Juan Garcia Germain
+George Langberg
+Brian R. Marsh
+Wellborn R. Hudson, III
+Stephen Strawn

This is endorsed by the parishes of the Pastoral Provision.
The Rev. Christopher Phillips

+Louis Campese
+Daren K. Williams
+David L. Moyer

* * *

Traditional Anglican Communion
Synod of the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia (Q) Inc
ABN 38 446 364 827
Archbishop John Hepworth

His Eminence William Cardinal Levada
Congregazione per la Dottrina Della Fede
Palazzo del S. Uffizio
00120 Vatican City

Your Eminence,

Prot. N. 217/08-30924

The bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia  (a province of the Traditional Anglican Communion) express their profound gratitude to you for your positive response of December 16th 2009 to our Letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of October 5th 2007 in which we expressed our desire to “seek a communal and ecclesial way of being Anglican Catholics in communion with the Holy See, at once treasuring the full expression of catholic faith and treasuring our tradition within which we have come to this moment.”

We have read and studied with care the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus with the Complementary Norms and the accompanying Commentary, as well as the initial statement from your Dicastery at the time of your press conference with Archbishop DiNoia.

And now, in response to your invitation to contact your Dicastery to begin the process you outline, we respectfully ask

• that the Apostolic Constitution be implemented in Australia;
• that we may establish an interim Governing Council consisting of the two suffragan bishops (who serve both the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia and Forward in Faith Australia), the Chancellor and Vicar General of the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia (both priests), a priest from the Council of Forward in Faith Australia, and a priest from among the former Anglican clergy who are now Catholic priests in Australia and who have indicated a desire to be incardinated into the Australian Ordinariate once it is formed.
• and that this interim Council be given the task and authority to propose to His Holiness a terna for appointment of the initial Ordinary.

We are working with Bishop Peter Elliott, who has been nominated by the Australian Conference of Catholic Bishops to liaise with us in the formation of the Ordinariate.

We also note that the Church of Torres Strait, a separate province of the Traditional Anglican Communion for Islanders resident in the Torres Strait and throughout Australia, is making a separate response through its bishop, Tolowa Nona.

We attach the resolution of the Council of Forward in Faith Australia also seeking the implementation of the Apostolic Constitution at this time.  The Traditional Anglican Communion in this country and Forward in Faith have been working very closely for many years.

We are also in conversation with Anglican parishes and individuals (both clergy and laity) who have indicated a desire to explore more deeply the pathway to unity with the Catholic Church opened by the Constitution.

In the last week of July, a National Synod will be held in Queensland to bring together all those who have indicated a firm desire to be part of the proposed Ordinariate.  The Synod has the power to enact legal and canonical legislation to give practical effect to a positive decision for Unity.

With continued expressions of appreciation for the generosity of the Holy Father in gathering the Anglicans into the fullness of Eucharistic communion,

Yours sincerely in Christ,

+John Hepworth, Diocesan Bishop

+David Robarts, Bishop of the Southern Region; Chairman of Forward in Faith Australia

+Harry Entwistle, Bishop of the Western Region; Council of Forward in Faith Australia