|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: One Million more reasons to join the Ordinariate.
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Your scroll wheel broken, M.? It's on the last two screens, pp. III, IV and V.
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Mgr Burnham's saying:
quote:
I don’t think I have ever suggested to anybody that they join the Ordinariate, lay person or priest, but what I have done is respond to people when they have asked me about it.
is not about the period prior to the announcement on Anglicanorum Coetibus in 2009. It is referring to the period between that and his resignation on 31 December 2010.
Either Burnham was lying through his teeth or I am suffering from severe memory loss. I saw an article in the Ebbsfleet leaflet about people moving on a pilgrimage at different speeds, of his job as leader to go ahead of them and assure them that it would be OK etc. etc. Some of my friends in the FiF church up the road from me were excited that he'd given them such firm leadership - and they have gone over to Rome. Others said they now knew why the symbol of a bishop is 'a crook.'
You can refresh your memory here:
http://www.ebbsfleet.org.uk/2010/ebbex10j.pdf
Thanks - that is how I remember it. Fair enough, he sets out the options and their cost. However, the reader can be in no doubt which option he would prefer people to take, couched as it is with rich biblical metaphor.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Oscar & Pyx_e, thanks for your replies. I see what you mean. Though to be honest I had rather been focusing on the probity of the whole course of action, rather than on whether it might have been a stitch-up. A perfectly reasonable point to explore, though I still feel it secondary to the main one which stands, irrespective of whether the thing was engineered this way or not.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc, oops, sorry, thanks.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
"The CBS membership rules changed before the announcement of an Ordinariate"
It's the change in tbe rules that was so wrong, however it was brought about. Previously the CBS had been a Society in which all members could join together in a celebration of Holy Communion or the Mass. The consequence of admitting Roman Catholics to membership was to make this impossible.
While Church of England priests are usually willing to give communion to Roman Catholics, as they are to any Christians in good standing, Roman Catholics are forbidden to receive it from them, and anyway do not recognise that the Eucharist can be validly celbrated by anyone other than a validly ordained priest, which does not of course include an Anglican priest (Cathechism; para.1411; Apostolicae Curae); and on the other hand Roman Catholic celebrants are forbidden to give communion to non-Roman Catholics except with special permission, which is rarely given.
The admission of Roman Catholics to membership of the CBS necessarily broke the unity of the Society, which had existed for 148 years specifically for those Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England who wished to remain loyal to their church and did not wish to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. If there had been no grant of £1 million to the Ordinariate in mind, the admission of Roman Catholics to this Church of England Society would have made no sense whatever.
I am sorry to have to say that it becomes more and more clear that it was a carefully worked out scheme to provide financial support for the Anglican priests who had already decided to join the Ordinariate. On the way the requirements of the law, such as the fundamental requirement that trustees, in making decisions, must not allow their duty and their interest to conflict, were simply brushed aside or ignored.
[code]
[ 27. August 2011, 02:30: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It's also the case that irrespective of any change in the make up of its members, the charity still has to function so as to achieve its original objects.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's also the case that irrespective of any change in the make up of its members, the charity still has to function so as to achieve its original objects.
I'm pretty sure that a charity can change its "objects", but it would need a formal vote at an AGM to do that. But that needs a legally competent overview, not the passing comments of someone like me.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's also the case that irrespective of any change in the make up of its members, the charity still has to function so as to achieve its original objects.
I'm pretty sure that a charity can change its "objects", but it would need a formal vote at an AGM to do that. But that needs a legally competent overview, not the passing comments of someone like me.
The Objects of the CBS were legally changed by a Charity Commission scheme in 1999
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
But have they been changed now to cover the way this £1M has been spent?
Even a resolution of the AGM would not change the objects. It would be the first stage to asking the Charity Commission to authorise a change. From experience of the Charity Commission, they don't automatically authorise exactly what a charity asks for.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm pretty sure that a charity can change its "objects", but it would need a formal vote at an AGM to do that.
Yes, many charities include in their constitution a power to make amendments and a procedure for doing so. But if the charity is registered it is required to notify the Charity Commission of any change in its constitution and to supply the Commission with copies of any alterations: Charities Act 1993 s.3B(3)(b) as amended. It does not appear from the Charity Commission's register of the CBS that the changes in the Constitution made in 2009 and 2010 were notified to the Commission; and in view of the disregard for the law that Christopher Pwearson and his colleagues have shown as trustees it would quite surprise me if they were. It would have needed an unusually perceptive and knowledgeable officer of the Commission to have noticed that, by the change in May 2010 by which membership of the CBS was opened to members of the Ordinariate (which did not come into existence for another 8 months), would wreck the unity of the CBS, and to advise the Trustees that the change could only affect donations received after the change took effect, so that all the assets held by the CBS at the date of the change remained on wholly Anglican trusts.
Was the Holy Spirit at work to-day? In my parish church (and I think many others) the Gospel reading (as it was in the broadcast service at 0810) included the saying of Jesus to Peter "You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things" (Mt.16.23 NRSV); while the offertory hymn was W.H. Turton's hymn, each of the first three verses of which ends "may we all one Bread, one Body be, One through this Sacrament of unity" (NEH 302). This was an object that could be achieved by members of the CBS participating in a celebration of the Eucharist before Roman Catholics were admitted to membership, but it can no longer be achieved, since any celebration of the Eucharist by the CBS is no longer capable of being a Sacrament of unity.
The Bishop of Rome is quick to claim that Jesus' saying to Peter a few verses earlier (Mt.16.18), "On this rock I will build my church", applies to Peter's successors as Bishops of Rome. I do not think he is quite so quick to acknowledge that the saying to Peter in v.23 must, on the same reasoning, apply to Peter's successors as Bishops of Rome too; though sometimes it seems very apt.
[ 29. August 2011, 00:39: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
The Bishop of Rome is quick to claim that Jesus' saying to Peter a few verses earlier (Mt.16.18), "On this rock I will build my church", applies to Peter's successors as Bishops of Rome. I do not think he is quite so quick to acknowledge that the saying to Peter in v.23 must, on the same reasoning, apply to Peter's successors as Bishops of Rome too; though sometimes it seems very apt.
To be fair to him, BXVI (and definitely his predecessor JPI, who was elected 33 years ago today) openly acknowledges both the strengths and failings of the Petrine ministry.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Was the Holy Spirit at work to-day? In my parish church (and I think many others) the Gospel reading (as it was in the broadcast service at 0810) included the saying of Jesus to Peter "You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things" (Mt.16.23 NRSV); while the offertory hymn was W.H. Turton's hymn, each of the first three verses of which ends "may we all one Bread, one Body be, One through this Sacrament of unity" (NEH 302).
The Holy Ghost was teaching us all a lesson about the Ordinariate through the details of your particular morning eucharist? That would have been very, um, inscrutable of Him indeed....
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Was the Holy Spirit at work to-day? In my parish church (and I think many others) the Gospel reading (as it was in the broadcast service at 0810) included the saying of Jesus to Peter "You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things" (Mt.16.23 NRSV); while the offertory hymn was W.H. Turton's hymn, each of the first three verses of which ends "may we all one Bread, one Body be, One through this Sacrament of unity" (NEH 302).
We had the same Gospel reading and later sang 'Sweet Sacrament Divine'!
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
That proves it then.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
egg - thanks for the overview. The purpose of my last post was more to point out that I thought change is possible (this in response to Enoch's point that a charity had to serve its original objects), but such a thing could not happen without the assent of the majority at an AGM or EGM. But it's good to have chapter and verse on this.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But have they been changed now to cover the way this £1M has been spent?
I'm sorry if I'm being unclear. This is precisely the point.
The Trustees received legal advice (from, if you believe the Chambers Guide, the most prominent QC in the sector) stating that the (then) proposed grant was within the charitable objectives in place since 1999.
The more recent changes are to do with membership, which is separate, albeit related. Even then, those changes came in early 2009, before anybody knew anything about Ordinariates.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
those changes came in early 2009, before anybody knew anything about Ordinariates.
Tee Hee.
All the best, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
The Trustees received legal advice (from, if you believe the Chambers Guide, the most prominent QC in the sector) stating that the (then) proposed grant was within the charitable objectives in place since 1999.
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
those changes came in early 2009, before anybody knew anything about Ordinariates.
Tee Hee.
All the best, Pyx_e
OK Pyx_e, other than unsubstantiated insinuation, what evidence do you have that anybody with anything to do with CBS knew anything about it?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
Sorry, that went off too soon.
The QC in question (whom I have not seen named) also advised that the CBS is not a Church oif England Charity. He "advised that the CBS is subject to neither Rome nor Canterbury. It is not part of a Church of England structure and it has its own independent hierarchy."
That, with all due respect, is nonsense. By the same reasoning, as I have said before, one could conclude that neither Opus Dei nor the Society of Jesus is a Roman Catholic charity.
There can be no possible doubt that, until members of the Ordinariate were declared to be eligible to join the CBS, it was a Society which existed for those Anglo-Catholics who wished to remain members of the Church of England and did not wish to be received into the Church of Rome. Not one penny of the donations and legacies to the CBS made before the eligibility for membership was changed was given for the purposes of the Roman Catholic Church; and I very much doubt whether one penny was given to the CBS by a Roman Catholic. To say in these circumstances that the CBS was not a Church of England Society because it was not formally part of the structure of the Church of England is a plain misuse of words.
The question the Trustees should have asked their QC is whether it was legally permissible to make a gift of money which had been contributed for 148 years for purposes connected with the Church of England to their newly founded Ordinariate, whose sole activity is expressed to be "ADVANCING THE CATHOLIC RELIGION" (I quote from their entry on the register of the Charity Commission at http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1141536 &SubsidiaryNumber=0). The answer to that question would have been that it was not legally permissible, and that the only funds that the Trustees could laewfully transfer to the Ordinariate were at most those that had been donated since membership of the CBS had been opened to members of the Ordinariate.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Sorry, that went off too soon.
The QC in question (whom I have not seen named) also advised that the CBS is not a Church oif England Charity. He "advised that the CBS is subject to neither Rome nor Canterbury. It is not part of a Church of England structure and it has its own independent hierarchy."
He has been publicly named, as picked up by Thinking Anglicans here:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005059.html
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
those changes came in early 2009, before anybody knew anything about Ordinariates.
Tee Hee.
All the best, Pyx_e
OK Pyx_e, other than unsubstantiated insinuation, what evidence do you have that anybody with anything to do with CBS knew anything about it?
I know from personal experience (and that of friends) that this was primarily happening long before Autumn 2010.
All the Best, Pyx_e.
See what I did then? (If you are not clear I am just quoting you as that seems to be evidence enough. Personal experience ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Friends ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
I know from personal experience (and that of friends) that this was primarily happening long before Autumn 2010.
All the Best, Pyx_e.
See what I did then? (If you are not clear I am just quoting you as that seems to be evidence enough. Personal experience Friends
I'm sorry Pyx_e I am genuinely confused. I've not got a horse in this race (I did not join the Ordinariate and am not a member of the CBS) and I'm beginning to regret spending so much time on this thread.
However some fairly serious allegations are being made against people I know, so I'd just like some clarity as to what you are alleging.
1.) It's clear from the paper-trail that the CBS Membership criteria changed in early 2009. Anglicanorum Coetibus was announced some months later in October 2009. I take it this interpretation of the facts is agreed?
2.) My understanding is that Mgrs Burnham and Newton might have known something was forthcoming from Rome on the "corporate reunion" front. They did not know precisely what, nor when. I guess you might dispute the extent of the foreknowledge of those two, but that's suspicion based on what's not been said?
3.) Neither Burnham nor Newton are trustees of CBS. I don't think it's alleged that any of the trustees were at the secret Rome meetings.
So are you saying that KN and AB informed the Trustees of what was going to happen before spring 2009? I'd genuinely be staggared if that's the case.
I'm happy to withdraw my earlier "personal experience" remark if that helps - I simply felt it might help understanding of the position on the ground at that point. Admittedly, that was the case with me when I was investigating joining, others may have approached them for counsel earlier.
I find this whole state of affairs absolutely heartbreaking. I "lost" most of the priests and bishops from whom I have received ministry to the Ordinariate, which I find pretty difficult to deal with. Whilst I consider my own position within my current church (hard enough in itself), it's particularly upsetting to see so much mud been thrown across the Tiber (both ways).
What I find saddest about the CBS affair is the way it has become a vehicle for this rancour to be piled onto - whether relevant to the precise issue at hand or not. Again this is equally true on both sides, although some of the comments on the CBS Facebook group I've found particularly distasteful.
There clearly is a question to be asked, which the Charity Commission are reviewing - but the questions must be asked solely on the stated facts. My attempts to clarify the timeline were simply trying to direct the discussion to this, but seem to have been more trouble than they were worth.
Ho-hum.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
There clearly is a question to be asked, which the Charity Commission are reviewing - but the questions must be asked solely on the stated facts.
Surely that has to be the last word on this matter, until the Charity Commission comes up with its judgement. Although the facts seem to vary depending on who is stating them...
[ 30. August 2011, 15:53: Message edited by: AberVicar ]
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
The QC in question (whom I have not seen named) also advised that the CBS is not a Church oif England Charity. He "advised that the CBS is subject to neither Rome nor Canterbury. It is not part of a Church of England structure and it has its own independent hierarchy."
That, with all due respect, is nonsense.
And yet, and yet... You never did respond to my observation here, egg.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
Chesterbollic said: quote:
A musically trained priest can be a very useful bod to have around.
Oh really?
Not in my experience.
Nobody really wants a musically trained priest.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
The QC in question (whom I have not seen named) also advised that the CBS is not a Church oif England Charity. He "advised that the CBS is subject to neither Rome nor Canterbury. It is not part of a Church of England structure and it has its own independent hierarchy."
That, with all due respect, is nonsense.
And yet, and yet... You never did respond to my observation here, egg.
I can't speak for egg, or the CBS, or the ordinariate, or anybody really. But since there has never been an actual body called 'the anglo-catholic church' I can only conclude that the original drafters of that statement were giving a particular (partisan) slant to the term 'anglican church' The post-tractarians and originators of movements like the CBS were keen to emphasise that the C of E, and Anglican Communion, were fully a part of the Catholic Church. It seems strange that those who now deny this should be the beneficiaries of their generosity.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Chesterbollic said:
Chester who?
I have to say I agree largely with Angloid although I suppose you could make a bit of a case for saying that the Ordinariate was the fulfillment of the Anglo-Catholic project, or the nearest we're ever going to get to it. If it succeeds and becomes a viable long-term Anglican-like branch of Catholicism which retains its distinctiveness and has close links with the Anglican Communion to advance the cause of understanding and reunion, and doesn't end up being (as I pessimistically suspect) a short-term escape tunnel under the Tiber then perhaps the donation isn't entirely unjustifiable.
Okay, that's a bit thin.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Chesterbollic said:
Chester who?
Bollic. You know - as in that Hilairy Bollic, the writer chappie. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
I can't speak for egg, or the CBS, or the ordinariate, or anybody really. But since there has never been an actual body called 'the anglo-catholic church' I can only conclude that the original drafters of that statement were giving a particular (partisan) slant to the term 'anglican church' The post-tractarians and originators of movements like the CBS were keen to emphasise that the C of E, and Anglican Communion, were fully a part of the Catholic Church. It seems strange that those who now deny this should be the beneficiaries of their generosity.
I can't speak for the drafters but can only point out that the words "Church of England" or "Anglican Church" were open for them to have used if that was what they meant.
To me it's evidence of foresight of a time that Anglo Catholicism might need to exist outside the structures of the Church of England, rather than undying committment to the CofE come what may.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Precisely.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
I suspect the legal issue, which the Charity Commission is looking at, boils down to this.
The objects of the CBS are now, by law, limited to “...the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition”
At the time of the £1 million grant to the Ordinariate, could the grant be for "...the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition"?
Well, what is the Anglican Tradition for these purposes? Does it include the Roman Catholic Church? Not very likely.
Does it include the bit of the Roman Catholic Church called the Ordinariate? The bit that requires all members to believe that:
"The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by [the Pope] and by the bishops in communion with [the Pope]" ?
Since that excludes every Archbishop of Canterbury since the reign of Elizabeth I, and every Church of England bishop, and (for good measure) also excludes the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, obviously not.
Does it make a difference that there is a vague reference in Anglicanorum Coetibus to "the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church"?
Er, no, because at the time of the grant no such approval had been given.
The crucial point is that those who joined the Ordinariate ceased to be part of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition and joined the Roman Catholic Church instead.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
What a lot of this is coming down to is a disagreement about what is meant by the (rather vague) term "Anglican Tradition".
The "normal" understanding of this phrase (and the one that I suspect the originators of the CBS intended) is that the Anglican Tradition is to be found WITHIN the Church England (and all other provinces in communion with the C of E). The "new" suggestion being proposed by the Ordinariate (and which is vital for the legality of the grant) is that the Anglican Tradition is something distinct from the Church of England, that can exist apart from the Church of England.
But what then is it? Anglicanorum Coetibus seems to suggest that it can be found mainly within the liturgy. But this seems absurd, given that the vast majority of people moving into the Ordinariate have been steadfastly ignoring Anglican liturgy for years and have been openly (and unlawfully) using Catholic liturgical material.
I suggest that THIS is the key area for discussion about the legality of the grant.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Oscar the Grouch wrote - quote:
But what then is it? Anglicanorum Coetibus seems to suggest that it can be found mainly within the liturgy. But this seems absurd, given that the vast majority of people moving into the Ordinariate have been steadfastly ignoring Anglican liturgy for years and have been openly (and unlawfully) using Catholic liturgical material.
Though somewhat paradoxically they may have to use something that does meet this criterion once the new service books are agreed.
I guess these arguments boil down to an examination of the legality rather than the probity of the grant. I remain nonplussed by the latter, but am in two minds over the former. It may or may not fly.
It seems to me that focus on the arguments presented here revolves around a number of key points. Two relate to the meaning of "Anglican Tradition" and "Anglo Catholic church" which have already been mentioned. I don't have anything to add there right now, but it seems that there is also a fairly major issue that will get addressed, and that is the changes that have occurred in the Anglican communion and the CofE specifically. They would revolve around the arising of the continuum and the change in usage of the word "Anglican" consequentially. Also there remains the issue of authority, which in a sense lies above that of the presenting issue for them of OoWP&B.
Or to put things another way, the arguments against making the grant may be strong if we assume a constant understanding of "Anglican", but less strong when the above factors are taken into account, which I am sure they will have to be.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
What a lot of this is coming down to is a disagreement about what is meant by the (rather vague) term "Anglican Tradition".
snip
I suggest that THIS is the key area for discussion about the legality of the grant.
I refer you to my post of 7th July (fourth post on page one of this topic...)
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
You never did respond to my observation here, egg.
Sorry, Chesterbelloc. Mea culpa. But your question has been well answered by Angloid, and I am happy to adopt his reply.
One needs to remember that there was quite a ferment among the High Church members of the Church of England in the latter part of the 19th century, and a real hope of a reunion between the Church of England and the Church of Rome on more or less equal terms. A number of societies were formed, such as the English Church Union, now merged in the Church Union, whose principal object is to maintain and profess that the Church of England is a true part of the Catholic Church. Another was the Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom, the formation of which was encouraged by Cardinal Wiseman and whose work was blessed by Pope Pius IX in person, which had Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican members, until Cardinal Manning obtained a ruling from Rome forbidding Roman Catholics to be members.
Any hopes of a reunion of the kind sought by Anglo-Catholics of this time were dashed by Pope Leo XIII's authoritative pronouncement in Apostolicae Curae that, in the eyes of the Church of Rome, Anglican orders were utterly null and void; and it became apparent that the Roman Catholic Church did not seek reunion but total submission, as is illustrated by the requirement imposed on those who join the Ordinariate that they must profess the whole Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church, including the denial of the validity of Anglican orders and indeed the denial that the Church of England is a true part of the Catholic Church at all.
I think it possible that in the more optimistic days when the CBS was founded the phrase "Anglo-Catholic Church" was intended to show that the CBS comprised members of the Church of England who emphasised the Catholic character of their Church rather than the Protestant side. However that may be, there was never any doubt that membership of the CBS was open only to members of the Church of England or of a church in communion with the Church of England.
For a more modern example of a wholly Anglican Society which emphasises the Catholic traditions of the Church of England, one can take Forward in Faith, whose agreed statement on Communion was expressly prepared "with a view to helping loyal members of the Church of England to remain within the fellowship of that Church and make a lively contribution to its life and witness."
It seems that the best that the Church of England can hope for from the Church of Rome is the acknowledgment in para.870 of the Catechism that "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church's) visible confines." It's a bit patronising, but anything closer to reunion is clealy not on the agenda.
[code]
[ 01. September 2011, 01:09: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc has repeatedly raised a point arising from Egg's post of 23 August. This post quotes the 1950 Constitution of the American CBS, which does indeed refer to 'the Anglo Catholic Church'. But the American CBS has been self-governing and able to revise its own Constitution since 1867. It was not the American CBS which made the grant to the Ordinariate.
Is there any evidence that the phrase 'the Anglo Catholic Church' was in the Constitution of the English CBS, the group which actually made the grant?
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
Chesterbelloc has repeatedly raised a point arising from Egg's post of 23 August. This post quotes the 1950 Constitution of the American CBS, which does indeed refer to 'the Anglo Catholic Church'. But the American CBS has been self-governing and able to revise its own Constitution since 1867. It was not the American CBS which made the grant to the Ordinariate.
Is there any evidence that the phrase 'the Anglo Catholic Church' was in the Constitution of the English CBS, the group which actually made the grant?
Ah, that would explain.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
Is there any evidence that the phrase 'the Anglo Catholic Church' was in the Constitution of the English CBS, the group which actually made the grant?
Well, the 8th Edition of the CBS Manual, published in 1887, reads as follows:
'LAWS
I. CONSTITUTION
1. The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ shall consist of Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Communicants of both sexes, being Members of, or in Communion with, the Church of England.'
Moving on a century or so, the 1999 Constitution (ie that in force until recent changes) said this:
'5.2 Membership of the Confraternity shall be open to communicant members of the Church of England and of Churches in full communion with the Church of England who also support the Objects, accept the catholic faith and observe the practices of the catholic religion.'
Suggestions that CBS has never been "C of E" seem, er, barking.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Chesterbollic said:
Chester who?
Bollic. You know - as in that Hilairy Bollic, the writer chappie.
My apologies! I have always read Chesterbelloc's handle as Chesterbollic. Thankyou for the correction.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi (from the Laws of the CBS):
The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ shall consist of Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Communicants of both sexes, being Members of, or in Communion with, the Church of England.
Interestingly - given how much of this issue is driven by trying to discern the intent of those who chose particular phrases - it is perfectly possible, under the principles of English & Welsh law at least, to interpret this clause in a manner that is entirely opposite to what the CBS is generally thought to believe. Let me explain:
1. Grammatically, "Both sexes" qualifies not just "communicants" (which I presume was the society's intent), but also "bishops, priests, deacons";
2. The statement "The Confraternity...shall consist of...." makes it mandatory that the Society should have representatives of all those classes, and of both sexes, in order to exist.
On its face, the constitution of the CBS says that not only is it open to women in holy orders, it is obligatory for the existence of the Society.
Not that any court would entertain this interpretation for long if it had before it lots of information showing that this would contradict other asepcts of the Society's ideals; which is why just pointing to the documents themselves may not be sufficient. Who knows, the Charity Commissioners or a court may discover that their is, in realityh, an "Anglo-Catholic Church" which may overlap with Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, but is of a sufficiently distinct nature to deserve recognition.....
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
The requirement of members of the CBS to 'accept the catholic faith and observe the practices of the catholic religion' is also potentially problematic, if it means (as I suspect) belief in transubstatiation, and the practices which go with it, to which traditional Anglican doctrine and practice is of course diametrically opposed. So the whole concept of 'catholic faith in the Anglican tradition' is, in that sense, a contradiction in terms from the beginning, at least in the CofE, although perhaps not in the Ordinariate?
Incidently, what of the other Catholic societies? Presumably, if the women bishops measure is passed by Synod, without any additional provision for dissenters, then the rump of FiF will be considering their position, in which case they will be eyeing other potential sources of funding, such as the Additional Curates Society and the like. Would they be in a similar position to the CBS with respect to offering funding to Ordinariate priests?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The requirement of members of the CBS to 'accept the catholic faith and observe the practices of the catholic religion' is also potentially problematic, if it means (as I suspect) belief in transubstatiation, and the practices which go with it, to which traditional Anglican doctrine and practice is of course diametrically opposed. So the whole concept of 'catholic faith in the Anglican tradition' is, in that sense, a contradiction in terms from the beginning, at least in the CofE, although perhaps not in the Ordinariate?
You are referring to the Roman Catholic faith. Transubstantiation was not a part of the catholic faith as understood by the Church of England at the Reformation, which stood by the Creeds, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the apostolic succession, and the definition of the catholic faith given by St Vincent of Lerins as "id quod semper ubique ab omnibus creditum est". "The practices of the catholic religion" were continued after the Reformation, with the orders of bishop, priest and deacon and the continuation of the dioceses and the parishes as established in the 7th century, with their cathedrals and system of cathedral government, and their unbroken succession of incumbents in the parishes (many parish churches display lists of incumbents going back to long before the Reformation, some of whom remained in post throughout the period from 1530 to 1560 or much of it). I see no difficulty in members of the CBS accepting the catholic faith (which for them does not necessarily include the new dogmas proclaimed by the Pope in the last 160 years, which certainly do not fall within St Vincent's definition) or the practices of the catholic religion (which do not include the Roman Catholic requirement of celibacy of the priesthood, which dates only from about the 11th century). Richard Hooker dealt with all this more than 400 years ago.
[ 02. September 2011, 19:51: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
You are referring to the Roman Catholic faith. ...
Ah, but this is the point - I'm suggesting that the CBS's interpretation of 'catholic faith' is not the same as the 'standard' Anglican interpretation, and that 'accept the catholic faith' is in effect code for 'believe in (literal) transubstantiation', just as 'observe the practices of the catholic religion' is code for 'make regular confession to a priest'. IOW, the objects of the CBS include the implicit aim of changing (or subverting, if you like) traditional Anglicanism to bring it nearer to Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, rather than simply upholding traditional Anglican doctrine and practice. Thus, whatever they might say, there has always been a certain distance between the society and the mainstream CoE.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
You are referring to the Roman Catholic faith. ...
Ah, but this is the point - I'm suggesting that the CBS's interpretation of 'catholic faith' is not the same as the 'standard' Anglican interpretation, and that 'accept the catholic faith' is in effect code for 'believe in (literal) transubstantiation', just as 'observe the practices of the catholic religion' is code for 'make regular confession to a priest'. IOW, the objects of the CBS include the implicit aim of changing (or subverting, if you like) traditional Anglicanism to bring it nearer to Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, rather than simply upholding traditional Anglican doctrine and practice. Thus, whatever they might say, there has always been a certain distance between the society and the mainstream CoE.
I think you are broadly right. The Tractarians and the high church Anglo-Catholic movement in the 19th century (of which the CBS is of course only one manifestation) believed they were bringing the Church of England back to its true nature, with emphasis on the Eucharist rather than Mattins as the main Sunday act of worship - in which they have been quite largely successful. But the Church of England is a broad church and allows a wide range of different forms of worship. If the CBS is near one extreme, HTB is nearer the other, but both are part of the C of E. Not all Roman Catholic beliefs and practices are unacceptable, but nor are they required of all members of the C of E. The continuity of the Church of England from its origins in the 7th century, when the Celtic and Roman missions came together to form a single church, is something that the Anglo-Catholics value more than the Evangelicals. Perhaps one can trace the real religion of the English people, which for centuries was anti-Papacy, back to Pope Pius V's (illegal) bull Regnans in Excelsis, which made those who had continued to look to Rome for guidance choose between their loyalty to their Sovereign and their loyalty to the Pope. As between the two, the CBS and other Anglo-Catholics have clearly chosen the former, whatever practices they may have adopted from those of the Roman Catholic Church. The Ordinariate have changed sides and opted for the latter (without, of course, in modern times needing to forego in non-religious matters their loyalty to the Sovereign). We all profess to believe in one Holy Catholic Church; but some of us nelieve in the Reformed branch of it established in this kingdom, while others believe in the branch governed from Rome, which has also been reformed, and in its dogmas and practices itself substantially changed since the Reformation. But one cannot deny that the two churches are different, particularly when one takes into account Apostolicae Curae and the Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
stated by Edd:
We all profess to believe in one Holy Catholic Church; but some of us nelieve in the Reformed branch of it established in this kingdom, while others believe in the branch governed from Rome, which has also been reformed, and in its dogmas and practices itself substantially changed since the Reformation.
Just so you don't get too cocky I should point out the CofE is no more Reformed than it is Catholic. Both the "reformed" should start with a small r. I would say that the CofE any time it seriously wants to, can become Reformed but has consistently decided not to.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
Oriiginally posted by Egg:
quote:
Perhaps one can trace the real religion of the English people, which for centuries was anti-Papacy, back to Pope Pius V's (illegal) bull Regnans in Excelsis, which made those who had continued to look to Rome for guidance choose between their loyalty to their Sovereign and their loyalty to the Pope.
In what sense was Regnans in Excelsis illegal?
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Is the person who made this quote saying tht thw 'real' religion of the English people is more anti-papacy than Christianity ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
In what sense was Regnans in Excelsis illegal?
Illegal in England because it purported to depose and set up kings of England, which in our law here is the business of Parliament, not Popes.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
...I should point out the CofE is no more Reformed than it is Catholic...
Of course, 100% is not more than 100%
[code]
[ 05. September 2011, 00:46: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
In what sense was Regnans in Excelsis illegal?
I am not an expert on this, but the formalities attending the publication of a papal bull were quite complicated. It is said that a very interesting account of the formalities which had to be observed in procuring bulls in Rome at the end of the fifteenth century in contained in the "Practica", published in 1904 by Schmitz-Kalemberg, which does not appear to be available on the internet. I have not read it!
Professor G.R.Elton, in England under the Tudors, says of Regnans in Excelsis, “In many ways it was an unfortunate document. It was incorrect in canon law, inasmuch as it failed to give Elizabeth a chance to defend herself and pronounced the deposition at once instead of letting a year pass after excommunication; the explanation that Elizabeth was only a ‘pretended’ queen was made nonsense of by the recognition she had received from Rome between 1559 and 1570. The bull displayed a painful ignorance of English affairs, denouncing Elizabeth for taking a title (supreme head) which she had been careful to avoid. The pope published it without reference to Spain, thus depriving himself of the only champion remotely capable of executing it; Philip was greatly annoyed both at the bull and at the discourtesy to himself Pius V, an austere and passionate Dominican, acted from conviction rather than sense. Political considerations did not enter his head: he did what he thought his duty against the heretic queen, but he did it with a precipitancy and neglect of proper form which gave men a chance of evading the issues he had raised. In the event Elizabeth had little difficulty in representing the pope as the aggressor, a view still held by reputable historians. Yet the truth is that Rome had valiantly ignored a series of blatant defiances and concealed attacks: for over ten years catholicism had been outlawed in England, and though the government were careful to mitigate the rigour of the law in its execution it is impossible not to admit that Rome had a real grievance and had at first shown much misguided patience. The rash, ill-conceived, and far-reaching step of February 1570 reversed the position.”
In other words an own goal by the Papacy, and offside as well. As I say, the national religion of anti-Popery which prevailed for the next 300 or more years stemmed quite largely from this illegal papal bull (“incorrect in canon law”, “neglect of proper form”), which itself led to a number of Roman Catholics being rightly convicted of treason, to the launch of the Armada which was so triumphantly defeated, and to the Gunpowder Plot, all of which fuelled English anti-Popery. Truly the Roman Catholic Church, and Pius V in particular, made a howling mess of things.
[ 05. September 2011, 00:47: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
