Ship of Fools: Purgatory: One Million more reasons to join the Ordinariate.

Thread: Purgatory: One Million more reasons to join the Ordinariate. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000832

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

So the story as I understand it is; a while ago Mgr Keith Newton (ex flying bishop, now head of the Ordinariate) asked the trustees of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament if they would make a grant to his new group. The said Confraternity (devoted to...............the Blessed Sacrament) then did several things (I am not sure in what order). It took legal advice, It changed its rules to allow Roman Catholic Members, most of its trustees (5 out of 6?) joined the Ordinariate.

Having done all that the trustees then gave £1,000,000 to the Ordinariate. Leaving £850,000 in the Charity. My understanding is that by far the majority of its members remain Anglican and they were not written to about this action by their trustees. The blogosphere seems to indicate a legal challenge but what say you all?

Appropriate use of funds in line with the constitution? A bit of pillaging on the way out? A deeply cynical move that will haunt ecumenical relations for the life of the Ordinariate and beyond?

Me, I say give them the £850,000 as well, in a Luke 6.29 theme. But even on a good day with a following wind of charitable thought I still think this is some weak assed, half baked, numb nuts thinking which will blow the “2nd wave” out of the water. Pretty shameful in my opinion.

All the best, Pyx_e

Catholic Herald Story

CBS web page

Random old geezers blog

CBS Charity Comms page

[ 02. December 2011, 09:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

I am not an expert at British charities law, but I fail to see how changing the rules to allow Roman Catholics and then giving the Ordinariate seed money could possibly be illegal. It is an act of extraordinary generosity, IMO. The encouraging thing about it is that it has the potential to keep the the ties that used to bind old friends together intact insofar as possible.

I believe the American Society of King Charles the Martyr now admits Catholics as members and there was, until Cardinal Law asked that it be shut down, a Roman Catholic province of the SSC. It used to be that Catholic converts from Anglicanism and the Anglo Catholics ceased being on speaking terms, but that is less the case now. This is another indicator of the reality.

Unfortunately, Paul W. seems to have a history of s-stirring, and perhaps is pursuing his own personal agenda by objecting. (In fact, I assumed that he had joined the Catholic Church long ago, but evidently he decided to stay for his own reasons.) Was he the priest who paraded around General Synod with a coffin proclaiming the death of the C of E, or was that Francis Bown?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

CBS was one of the 'catholic societies' I never joined (I am a life member of some others and the only way out is to die!)

I know Keith Newton and consider him to be a man of integrity so I am surprised he accepted the cash.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

It's only one step further from the Anglo-Catholic societies that won't give grant support to women priests (ACS is one of them) - or indeed from the way in which SSC became open to only a part of the presbyterate upon the first presbyteral ordinations of women.

Once the line of comprehensiveness is crossed (only open to those who fit our criteria) than something distinctively Anglican has been lost. Where is the line between a 'ginger group' and a closed party?

As far as I can see, CBS has not been a great deal more than a closed society for a while. The bankrolling of the Ordinariate is probably reprehensible but it is not surprising.

The interesting thing is that those joining the Ordinariate seem to believe they are maintaining the Catholic priesthood in the Anglican tradition (to quote the CBS's constitution). It would be very interesting to see how the 'Anglican patrimony' of Anglicanorum Coetibus can be interpreted to fit a phrase which until very recently was used to mean (even remotely) communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
It's only one step further from the Anglo-Catholic societies that won't give grant support to women priests (ACS is one of them)

The GSS's 'Candidates for ordination Fund' is another. Its advert invites members to apply and nowhere says that this is limited to males - but it is.

However, the GSS view of the ordinariate is to view people as traitors if they join - that is not the official wording but you don't have to read much between the lines of various letters from the warden. It has kicked out members whop have joined the ordinariate, unlike the CBS.

[ 07. July 2011, 19:58: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Yes the GSS now think the CBS are splitters.

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS, Pyx_e.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

It may be legal but given the circumstances it seems all wrong.

A donation towards buying some eucharistic vessels for some ordinariate congos might have been a nice gesture. To pass over the majority of the funds given that you are heading that way yourself is way too much.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Something may be legal but that doesn't make it morally right.

This just feels too much like a dirty stitch up.

The open and honest thing to do would have been to write to all the members and say "this is the proposal, do you give your consent?" Then, if the majority said yes, there wouldn't have been a problem.

But as things stand now, it looks decidedly dodgy and as a result gives the average outsider a rather poor impression of the Ordinariate, at a time when they really need to be looking clean and "winsome".

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I think some of the Catholic Societies have form in this regard... the Society of Mary signed their membership up to Forward in Faith without their permission to the ire of some Affirming [ex] members I knew.

I'd be more interested to know what the Roman Catholic hierarchy think of their members being invited to join an organisation devoted to worshiping a Protestant Sacrament of dubious validity? Hardly going to win the Ratzinger Prize for Catholic Orthodoxy is it?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

If the officers and trustees who have joined the Ordinariate have done so as active clergy -or clergy on Ordinariate pension, they have basically written their own paychecks. Even if the donation is juggled so that the account in which the Ordinariate dropped the funds is not the very same account that pays these particular clergy, taking the heat off the Ordinariate having to dig up funds to play the rest of the clergy is merely stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

Perhaps it's legal, but it's tacky, tacky, tacky. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
... merely stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

The other way round, nu? [Smile]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Now that you put it that way... [Big Grin]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

As far as my disposition on the matter goes, discussion of this misappropriation of the CBS's assets is more suited to Hell.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

I thought the Catholic priesthood was all about a calling to poverty, chastity and obedience.

Is that the difference from the ordinary Catholic priesthood and the Ordinariate one?

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I thought the Catholic priesthood was all about a calling to poverty, chastity and obedience.

Is that the difference from the ordinary Catholic priesthood and the Ordinariate one?

Only religious (clerical and lay) take vows. Diocesan clergy make promises of chastity and obedience to their bishop.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

There's a [url= http://"https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002575198970"]facebook profile[/url] questioning the move. It definitely seems dubious and not the behaviour I would expect of trustees. Though my main question is why do they have nearly £2m in the first place!

Carys

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I don't know if it applies in this case, Carys, but it's quite usual for charities to invite bequests, which are then invested so that the income from them can be used to support the charitable work on a regular basis, rather than the ad hoc basis that would otherwise be needed.

But if so, that highlights the fact that giving your capital away is also changing (restricting) the ways you can work in future.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
There's a [url= http://"https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002575198970"]facebook profile[/url] questioning the move. It definitely seems dubious and not the behaviour I would expect of trustees. Though my main question is why do they have nearly £2m in the first place!

Carys

Most of the so-called catholic societies have loads of money because they were formed at a time when anglo-catholicism was a very fragile plant and they persuaded wealthy people to leave large legacies to buttress themselves against 'protestant bishops'.

Those of us who are 'affirming' catholics are aware that we cannot compete because we rely on annual subscriptions and have little capital in the bank.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi
I don't know if it applies in this case, Carys, but it's quite usual for charities to invite bequests, which are then invested so that the income from them can be used to support the charitable work on a regular basis, rather than the ad hoc basis that would otherwise be needed.

If a charity has a large fund which it is treating as its endowment, it isn't usual for it suddenly to donate 3/5 of it at once - even to something that is within its objects, yet alone something that appears not to be.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Leo writes;

quote:
Those of us who are 'affirming' catholics are aware that we cannot compete because we rely on annual subscriptions and have little capital in the bank.

Not necessarily so, Leo. As many of the funds you mentioned were, as you describe, enriched by legacies, it would seem that all there is to do is wait for a generation of affirming catholics to die off.

I know little of UK charities law, but the group's decision seems to me to be a counsel of despair, in terms of keeping ACism running in the CoE.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi
I don't know if it applies in this case, Carys, but it's quite usual for charities to invite bequests, which are then invested so that the income from them can be used to support the charitable work on a regular basis, rather than the ad hoc basis that would otherwise be needed.
If a charity has a large fund which it is treating as its endowment, it isn't usual for it suddenly to donate 3/5 of it at once - even to something that is within its objects, yet alone something that appears not to be.

That was the meaning of my last paragraph, Enoch, though perhaps I could have worded it more explicitly.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

Lots to say on this one...

According to the Catholic Herald article, the CBS has been "asset-rich" for over a hundred years.

I am firmly of the opinion that the grant falls within the charitable objects, which have remained the same since amendment in 1999 (NOT 2009/2010 - that's the membership rules, which is a different point). If the objects were drafted with the Ordinariate in mind it shows a miraculous level of foresight!

Whether the membership rules had changed or not, the Ordinariate would have been eligible for a grant - of course whether the trustees would have made such a large grant is another matter.

If the Ordinariate is eligible for a £1 grant, it's eligible for a £1 million grant. Indeed it's far more 'needy' than most of the other applicants, given it needs to clothe and house 61 priests + families. How else are the CBS going to spend the money? They might have been saving it for a rainy day, but some would argue that rainy day has come.

I think many of those jumping up and down now would jump up and down even more if CBS restricted itself to the CofE and then was taken over by the Affirming and middle ground of the CofE in due course. Fr Williamson has certainly made his view on "priestesses (his words not mine)" very clear in several attempted court cases!

The Trustees have made it quite clear that they will not personally benefit from the grant. I take the indirect point, but that can be managed. There is some degree of conflict in most ecclesiastical charities - notably DBFs where (paid) Archdeacons are trustees.

Whether the Trustees went about this in the right way, I don't know. But they seem to have carefully taken legal advice every step of the way and believe what they are doing is in the interests of the Charity (which does not necessarily have to be the same as what the majority of the members think).

So, a bit of a PR issue for the Ordinariate perhaps but I don't see how the Trustees have done anything legally wrong.

Posted by Hedgerow Priest (# 13905) on :

I cannot see that the ordinariate boys have done anything legally, nor, I am sure, can their lawyers. Rather than getting into this debate as such, I think what is interesting - and I really mean that, not in an antagonistic way - Is the nascent, ongoing relationship between the ordinariate crowd, and those who remain in the CofE. What I mean is that basically, in years to come, historians will pore over the self-understanding of the ordinariate, ex-episcopal monsignores. I just find the whole thing very interesting - OK, CBS - predominantly Anglican Membership, 5/6 officers submit to Rome, yet it remains an entity. dont really know wot I am driving at, but I think that ppl will study this in years to come.

Posted by Hedgerow Priest (# 13905) on :

missed edit window - what i meant to say was, "cannot imagine ordinariate has done anything legally WRONG" - certainly not accusing them or lawyers of anything! How long do you get to edit a post?

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The money is almost irrelevant. The problem is integrity. Anglo-catholics go on about two integrities. Where is any integrity at all? If the Ordinariate compromises its integrity, it serves no purpose at all. If it serves no purpose at all to Rome, it will be shut by B16 more quickly than Murdoch shut the News of the World.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The money is almost irrelevant. The problem is integrity. Anglo-catholics go on about two integrities. Where is any integrity at all? If the Ordinariate compromises its integrity, it serves no purpose at all. If it serves no purpose at all to Rome, it will be shut by B16 more quickly than Murdoch shut the News of the World.

I think you're getting confused here. The Ordinariate is not any part of the "two integritites" model. That is and was purely an internal Anglican model for coping with the differences in principles.

By joining the Ordinariate, anglo-catholics are becoming Roman Catholics. Full stop. The Ordinariate does not exist to serve an intra-Anglican model of anything. Its purpose is to worship God and save souls - like any other part of the Catholic Church.

That it should do so with integrity is unquestionable. But whether by taking the proferred CBS money to support its priests (most of whom have made a quite heroic sacrifice and act of faith in God's plan for them, giving up homes, status and livelihoods) the Ordinariate has done anything improper or unbecoming is very much questionable.

Any member of the CBS - let alone officebearer - who did not realise that the Confraterity was highly likely to suppport such a venture as the Ordinariate represents really hasn't been paying attention since at least the early 1990s.

Can I just remind everyone who the person was who kicked up the fuss over this donation in the first place? It was this "vexatious litigant." This guy has serious form.

Posted by Treasurer (# 13036) on :

All of this sounds so very Church of England. It's the last rites being played out by people who can't see how ridiculous they are.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Please clarify,

P.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

Am I the only person who thinks it odd that the Ordinariate is so lacking in financial support from the Catholic Church that it needs to solicit and then accept what is, by any estimate, Anglican money?

(I say 'Anglican money' simply because something like 95% of members of CBS remain in the C of E and churches in communion with her.)

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
How else are the CBS going to spend the money?

Erm, in encouraging devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament within the Church of England? Just a wild guess there...

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

It sounds a bit like scorched earth policy to me, and I wonder if the Ordinariate will be allowed to accept it (by a higher Catholic authority).

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Chester, can you really not see how using monies donated to support an Anglican Eucharistic fraternity to support people leaving the Anglican Church might be, well, at least an eensy-weensy misdirection of funds?

Zach

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It sounds a bit like scorched earth policy to me, and I wonder if the Ordinariate will be allowed to accept it (by a higher Catholic authority).

If the higher Catholic authority forbids the Ordinariate to accept it, then, in justice, same authority needs to scrounge for a practical alternative other than bingo.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The same goes for you, Shadowhund. You cannot possibly think the board of directors of this fraternity believe this move is about furthering devotion to the Eucharist.

Zach

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You cannot possibly think the board of directors of this fraternity believe this move is about furthering devotion to the Eucharist.

Zach

Unfortunately, they do seem to believe this, Zach - most likely on the basis that they have thought for some time that they are the only ones in the Anglican tradition who have any respect for the Blessed Sacrament; and that now they have indubitably valid sacraments, so the rest of us can go hang!

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Chester, can you really not see how using monies donated to support an Anglican Eucharistic fraternity to support people leaving the Anglican Church might be, well, at least an eensy-weensy misdirection of funds?

Yes I can. But I can also see the other side of the argument. That's all.

My hunch - not more than that - would be that the overwhelmingly vast majority of members (especially clerical) are opposed to the OoW and are sceptical at best about whether there is any future whatsoever for the kind of traditional A-Cism which the foundation of the CBS was premised upon.

In that context, I can easily see why CBS would want to redirect the funds to trad A-Cs who accepted the kind of Papal offer the many in the Catholic societies have been yearning for for over 100 years.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You cannot possibly think the board of directors of this fraternity believe this move is about furthering devotion to the Eucharist.

Zach
Unfortunately, they do seem to believe this, Zach - most likely on the basis that they have thought for some time that they are the only ones in the Anglican tradition who have any respect for the Blessed Sacrament; and that now they have indubitably valid sacraments, so the rest of us can go hang!

Surely they've been waiting for something like the Ordinariate for so long they want to make sure it converts from a nice idea into a sustainable reality while stocks last, as it were. There are currents and cross-currents here, though, I suspect. After all, one possible reading of the gesture is that they want to ensure the ongoing influence of the Anglican heritage, and indeed the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, under the new arrangements. They've been more or less running their own show for a wee while now; can't have these nasty bishops coming in and ruining it, even if they are the Pope's bishops rather than the ABC's....

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

My crystal ball says:

The Ordinariate will return the money to CBS.

The CBS trustees who have become Roman Catholic priests will resign as trustees, and be replaced by Anglicans.

- I really don't see how Roman Catholic priests can run a charity which gives money regularly for the purchase of Anglican chalices and stoles.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

I think your crystal ball is a very good one Freejack.

quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
If the higher Catholic authority forbids the Ordinariate to accept it, then, in justice, same authority needs to scrounge for a practical alternative other than bingo.

Are you aware of what has already been done, and is being done financially by the Catholic Church? But where do you think it should get this money from? And which other part of the Catholic Church gets such a free hand-out?

There needs to be a little give on both sides. If Ordinariate clergy want to be uncontaminated by the wider Catholic Church, then they must find their own money. I'm sure there are some such. On the other hand, most have been realistic enough to know they cannot expect a church building etc of their own, for a tiny number of congregants relatively, paid for by someone else. And that it is unrealistic to expect someone somewhere to pay for them to minister exclusively to said congregants. The Catholic Church has done a great deal in order to find accommodation and employment (hospital, school and even parish ministry). A good dose of realism is needed, cutting your cloth and all that.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think, as you put it TT, it's a matter of practical Christian Ethics in realtime.

If some Ordinariate clergy expect the full Anglican package (currently worth A$90,000.00 PA in Brisbane) they are really not in touch with reality. Any form of reality.

Ordinary Latin Rite clerics in these parts don't have it quite so good.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Surely they've been waiting for something like the Ordinariate for so long...

As I understand from this thread, the vast majority of the fraternity's members are not jumping ship. Which makes "the other side of the argument," as Chester puts it, look kind of dubious to me. How can "the other side of the argument" possibly be construed as good for the organization these guys were the trustees of?

Zach

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It sounds a bit like scorched earth policy to me, and I wonder if the Ordinariate will be allowed to accept it (by a higher Catholic authority).
If the higher Catholic authority forbids the Ordinariate to accept it, then, in justice, same authority needs to scrounge for a practical alternative other than bingo.

You mean like regular, sacrificial giving by the whole congregation? The way every CofE church has to fund itself and always has done.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I think your crystal ball is a very good one Freejack.

Our crystal balls are converging on parallel lines.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Surely they've been waiting for something like the Ordinariate for so long...
As I understand from this thread, the vast majority of the fraternity's members are not jumping ship. Which makes "the other side of the argument," as Chester puts it, look kind of dubious to me. How can "the other side of the argument" possibly be construed as good for the organization these guys were the trustees of?

Zach

But it's not a private members club, it's a charity for the furtherance of the (state-sanctioned) charitable objects. What the majority of members think is not the be-all and end all.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
But it's not a private members club, it's a charity for the furtherance of the (state-sanctioned) charitable objects. What the majority of members think is not the be-all and end all.

True. But what the majority of members think should surely count for something.

As I said earlier - had this huge sum (let's not forget that we are talking about over half of the charity's funds) been offered AFTER a consultation with the members, then I don't think that there would have been a problem. But it has been pushed through without consulting members and in a manner that invites criticism. It is not enough to be legal - it must be morally right as well.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

CBS in the USA allows women priests to be members.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
But it's not a private members club, it's a charity for the furtherance of the (state-sanctioned) charitable objects. What the majority of members think is not the be-all and end all.

The legality of the move is completely uninteresting to me. I don't think it is right, and do tell me if you don't know the difference.

My argument was based on what was best for the organization. That is what the trustees are supposed to look after. How raiding the organization's coffers and leaving the vast majority of its members in the lurch can be construed as faithful stewardship of this organization is beyond me.

Now, I think I've been working up some respect and understanding of the people going Roman. But I will lose that respect if screwing over the flock they are leaving behind is to be seen as appropriate on the Roman side of things.

Zach

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with the Stick
But it's not a private members club, it's a charity for the furtherance of the (state-sanctioned) charitable objects. What the majority of members think is not the be-all and end all.

Not quite. True, that the members cannot agree to dosh out the charity's assets for their own benefit. Ignoring the members and disposing over 3/5 of the assets without taking their views into account, if this is what has happened, is likewise an abuse. If the trustees have actually parted with the money, they could be at risk of having to pay it back from their own pockets.

There are all sorts of different sorts of organisations with charitable status. A lot of them have members who pay subscriptions because it is a cause they support and want to be involved in. A lot also have received donations in peoples' wills etc. Some of the six activities listed in this ones objects are things members will presumably want to share in, and through the charity to meet like minded people.

Nor is it quite correct to say 'state sanctioned'. If one is going to involve the state in this at all, it's more that in return for charitable status and commitment to charitable objects, rather than the mere benefit of the members for themselves, the charity gets certain legal and taxation benefits. 'Recognition' would be a better description.

Applying money that has been subscribed or donated for a purpose that is different from what people thought they were giving to as described in the objects, however worthy and public spirited the trustees might think they are being, is a fraud on the members and the dead.

This isn't my sort of cause. And I'm not going to predict whether this will get litigated or not, or if so what the result would be. But if one knows anything about what was going on in the C19 CofE, it is difficult to conclude that a C19 charity set up 'for the advancement of the Catholic Faith in the Anglican tradition' and specifying six particular ways, would have envisaged including the funding of people to 'go over'.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

I don't truthfully know how this whole sorry business will end. However I don't think it will end well or, for that matter, deserve to.

Although not a member of CBS, I was shocked to see the report in Friday's Church Times and, to be honest, relieved that I didn't join CBS when I became eligible to.

For the greater part of its existence, CBS has been one of the most exclusive of exclusive Anglican clubs. It was unthinkable that members of other denominations who had a devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, might conceivably be allowed to become members, whether on the Roman side or the Free Church one. I therefore found it something of a revelation to learn only today that CBS has apparently amended its constitution during the past couple of years in a way which would appear to allow Roman Catholics to become members.

Even more revealing was the discovery that five out of the six current trustees are guys who've swam the Tiber and are now members of the Ordinariate. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Rome decides to do about it.

It would wrong to try and prejudge the Charity Commission's findings. Even if the award of such a grant is held to be legal, which it may well be, it's still an act of bad faith. Why? Because the CBS members who gave the money over the years will have been loyal Anglicans who gave it on the understanding that it would be used for Anglican ends.

Had it been a token grant of perhaps a thousand pounds, I suspect it would have gone largely unnoticed and nobody would have really minded. However before the grant was made, CBS had nearly two million pounds in the bank. Now it has rather less than a million. Such a substantial giveaway can only be considered as ill-judged and foolish. I predict that this business will damage both CBS (if it doesn't kill it altogether) and the Ordinariate. I don't foresee any of the parties to this fiasco emerging smelling of roses.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

Adrian1, I think the Ordinariate would come out smelling of roses if they said "No thank you" and returned the money. I don't think they will unless they are forced to...and I hope they are!

Triple T would know far better than I whether this is likely to happen and seems to think it will. The Ordinary is not accountable to the Bishops so presumably somebody in the ecclesiastical ionosphere would have to say that this is not kosher.

It doesn't reflect well on the trustees who have joined the Ordinariate. If you are generous with other people's money as an Anglican won't you have a similar approach as a Catholic?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Adrian1, I think the Ordinariate would come out smelling of roses if they said "No thank you" and returned the money. I don't think they will unless they are forced to...and I hope they are!

Seconded.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

It seems from this piece in Jezebel's Trumpet that a donation was sought before the Ordinariate had yet come into being:

quote:
The present Superior-General, Fr Christopher Pearson, now a priest in the Ordinariate, has reported that, in December, the Ordinary of the Ordinariate, Mgr Keith Newton, then the (Anglican) Bishop of Richborough, approached him “asking whether it was within the remit of the Confraternity to make a financial grant to the proposed Ordinariate”.

Whatever one thinks about this particular donation, it is very much part of Mgr Newton's role to ensure there is enough money to keep his clergy housed, fed, etc. and able to support their families in the first few months of its existence.

[ 11. July 2011, 15:14: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Whatever one thinks about this particular donation, it is very much part of Mgr Newton's role to ensure there is enough money to keep his clergy housed, fed, etc. and able to support their families in the first few months of its existence.

Isn't this the Catholic Church's problem, now? Why should Confraternity money be used to do this?

If the money were truly contributed with the intention it be used to provide the equipment necessary for a liturgical devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, then I'd suggest the money may not be necessary. In the event an ordinariate church had to go without the necessaries (such as a monstrance or the ever-popular humeral veil), a request could be put out to all Catholic churches. Surely someone has an extra they would be willing to donate to a good cause, or surely there is a wealthy Catholic who would be willing to throw some cash their way.

Give the money back, Ordinariate!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Whatever one thinks about this particular donation, it is very much part of Mgr Newton's role to ensure there is enough money to keep his clergy housed, fed, etc. and able to support their families in the first few months of its existence.

Even if he has to run off with as much as the silver as he can carry to do it?

That's not any sort of integrity, Catholic or otherwise.

Zach

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

I agree absolutely. Whatever the legal position and the findings of the Charity Commission, what's beyond doubt is that there's a moral issue at stake. For a wholly Anglican organisation to change its constitution nearly 150 years after it was founded, just in time for a group of non-Anglicans to be given half its assets, stinks to my mind. I hope very much that Rome insists on the money being handed back, whatever the outcome of any enquiry. If the Ordinariate are allowed to keep it, that won't do Rome any good and,I suspect, a great deal of harm. Let it not be forgotten that those who are in the Ordinariate are there because they've decided voluntarily to forsake the English Church, mostly because they're unable or unwilling to accept its synodically expressed mind.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It seems from this piece in Jezebel's Trumpet that a donation was sought before the Ordinariate had yet come into being:

quote:
The present Superior-General, Fr Christopher Pearson, now a priest in the Ordinariate, has reported that, in December, the Ordinary of the Ordinariate, Mgr Keith Newton, then the (Anglican) Bishop of Richborough, approached him “asking whether it was within the remit of the Confraternity to make a financial grant to the proposed Ordinariate”.
Whatever one thinks about this particular donation, it is very much part of Mgr Newton's role to ensure there is enough money to keep his clergy housed, fed, etc. and able to support their families in the first few months of its existence.

The whole course of events sounds of very dubious morality to me.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

I would say that the whole business was of very dubious morality indeed and this is why I don't envisage it coming to a good end. The last bad course available would be for the Ordinariate to hand the money back, assuming it's not been spent, and for the trustees to stand down in favour of wholly Anglican ones. However I don't intend holding my breath in anticipation of that happening.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

Why do we assume that the Ordinariate would be able to simply hand the money back, as a matter of charity law?

Whilst the law can indeed be an ass at times, it's equally foolish not to comply with it.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Why do we assume that the Ordinariate would be able to simply hand the money back, as a matter of charity law?

Whilst the law can indeed be an ass at times, it's equally foolish not to comply with it.

You're probably better versed in Charity Law than I am. However I wasn't aware of any rule which prevented money from being repatriated to a charity if it had been granted on questionable grounds.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
because they've decided voluntarily to forsake the English Church,

No, they have forsaken the Tudor Church, not the English Church.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
No, they have forsaken the Tudor Church, not the English Church.

This Tudor Church?

I swear, this crap is going to destroy the Bon Homie I was feeling after joining with the Romans to argue for the catholic faith against pluralist heresy.

Zach

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Tetchy eh?

You see, when Anglicans throw around terms like Romans, the English Church, Italian Mission etc, they say it's a perfectly valid way of speaking from their perspective.

So I just throw in an opposite perspective from time to time in response, so that we are all on an equal footing.

Lesson to be learnt? Don't use partisan terminology in discussions like these.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It may be legal but given the circumstances it seems all wrong.

A donation towards buying some eucharistic vessels for some ordinariate congos might have been a nice gesture. To pass over the majority of the funds given that you are heading that way yourself is way too much.

It seems 'a little funny' given that most traditional Anglo-Catholics won't give up and run for Rome no matter how much Rome and some Liberal Anglicans wish they would! On the other hand, they are not contravening their own rules by doing this so it cannot possibly be illegal - just, you know, funny (peculiar not haha!) in the circumstances.

I think in the end there will be provision made for traditionalists to remain in the C of E, so to pull the handle now seems a little premature unless you are genuinely convinced that you now accept RC doctrine. I am from the Catholic tradition within Anglicanism, but going over to Rome is not an option because I dissent from some key RC doctrines. There is no point to me thinking about the ordinariate because I don't want to convert. If I wanted to go over I would just become regular RC and find the most rubrically observant parish within reach.

It seems to me that to accept the whole cycle of Roman dogma and remain C of E is just as dishonest as rejecting bits of it and remaining RC. But then, I am the sort to put belief ahead of expediency.

PD

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So I just throw in an opposite perspective

With all due respect I wish you'd pack it in. Given our respective official positions regarding each other, responding to shorthand terminology or jocular but affectionate language with something that can mean only "Yeah, well, you lot stopped being a proper Church 500 years ago" isn't very becoming.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
With all due respect I wish you'd pack it in. Given our respective official positions regarding each other, responding to shorthand terminology or jocular but affectionate language with something that can mean only "Yeah, well, you lot stopped being a proper Church 500 years ago" isn't very becoming.

I agree with you entirely. Our "partisan" language is intended to maintain our membership in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and theirs is intended to deny it, so really there is no comparison and TT's accusations of tetchiness was silly.

But perhaps in the spirit of that ecumenical Bon Homie I was talking about, perhaps we should stick with the much more laborious "Roman Catholic Church."

Zach

[ 12. July 2011, 18:58: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So I just throw in an opposite perspective
With all due respect I wish you'd pack it in. Given our respective official positions regarding each other, responding to shorthand terminology or jocular but affectionate language with something that can mean only "Yeah, well, you lot stopped being a proper Church 500 years ago" isn't very becoming.

I'm sorry, that just doesn't wash. If you want to reserve the right to use offensive terminology which you regard as "jocular but affectionate" you resign the right to object when the favour is returned.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Real question, TT. Why is "Roman Church" so offensive when, as I said above, it isn't denying the validity of the Roman Catholic Church, it's merely positing a world in which both Rome and Canterbury are valid.

Zach

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Can I interrupt this fraternal love-fest to ask a, somewhat off point, question?

How and when did Jezebel's Trumpet earn that delightfully partisanal sobriquet?

Zach82, I was schooled by Triple Tiara several years ago on this point of Roman vs. Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church. There never having been the scale of the fratricide in these former colonies (well, the Know Nothing assault on the Ursuline Convent in Charlestown, Massachusetts, excepted) as there was in the Olde Countrie, so I think we're on reasonably safe grounds saying "Roman" hereabouts. Leastwise, it never raised so much as an eyebrow when I was at my little Jesuit Schoolhouse.

[ 12. July 2011, 23:03: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Zach82, I was schooled by Triple Tiara several years ago on this point of Roman vs. Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church. There never having been the scale of the fratricide in these former colonies (well, the Know Nothing assault on the Ursuline Convent in Charlestown, Massachusetts, excepted) as there was in the Olde Countrie, so I think we're on reasonably safe grounds saying "Roman" hereabouts. Leastwise, it never raised so much as an eyebrow when I was at my little Jesuit Schoolhouse.

Well, it is his pretense for denying the validity of Anglicanism. That and the phrase "English Church," which makes it even more astonishing he's offended, considering his confession calls itself the Catholic Church!

Zach

[ 12. July 2011, 23:06: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Tie it in with "the English Church" Zach. In these parts, don't forget, the Roman Catholic Church was outlawed and remains the only religion that has specific legislation against it. That's not just about who may marry into the royal family, it continues in lots of little hidden ways. These are innocuous in and of themselves and don't really impinge on ordinary life, but the fact remains they exist. An RC Diocese, for example, cannot be granted a Coat of Arms because the only legal claimant to such things is the CofE. No RC Diocese can be set up bearing the same name as a CofE one - though that doesn't work the other way: Southwark, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Liverpool were all Catholic Diocesan names before the Anglicans later assumed them as well.

The reason is in order to make clear that the RCC is "foreign". It's subject to a "foreign Power", namely the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities (to quote the Book of Common Prayer). It's not for good decent English folk. It's for Irish and Italian peasants. It's the Italian Mission to the Irish. Sensible Englishmen belong to the English Church, not that foreign Roman peasant outfit.

There is of course another strand to this, I know. The desire of some Anglicans to claim the title Catholic is a relatively recent phenomenon arising out of the Anglo-Catholic revival. It was much simpler when Anglicans were happy, indeed proud, to claim the title of Protestant. But things have changed, so there seems to be this desire to distinguish the "Romans". You know, you are the only ones who seem intent on doing this. It never gets through to you that we ourselves have to think twice about who you are referring to when you do this, because that terminology is unheard of amongst us.

Talk among yourselves that way all you like, but like I said: in a discussion such as this that kind of partisan and polemical terminology ought to be avoided - unless you are equally willing to accept the return of the favour and allow us to call you Protestants, the Tudor Church or the like.

Just think about how much it grates when you hear Catholics unthinkingly doing just that, and you will recognise what I am talking about.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Zach82, It's probably best to take a deep breath.

When Adrian1 flings "forsake the English Church" at the Ordinariate, it can only be with partisan bite.

With no established church in America, when we Episcopalians, adrift on a Sea of Irish Catholicism, say "English Church", we are indulging in a little fuzzy-headed, faux-nostalgic Anglophilia. Anyone who would hear 1960s, anti-Kennedy, taking-order-from-Rome, Catholic-baiting when we say Rome (1 syllable), ought to redirect their animus to the Garabedians of the world. "Italian Mission" [!!] in the Northeast? It is to laugh. They are (well, used to be) the established church.

[x-posted with TT]

[ 12. July 2011, 23:22: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

That of course was written and cross-posted with your latest outraged potshot. Hey-ho.

(and I didn't mean Silent Acolyte of course. We're all live at the moment!)

[ 12. July 2011, 23:24: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

When I say, "we're on reasonably safe grounds saying "Roman" hereabouts," I don't mean here on SoF.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I'll call you Roman Catholic all you like, though I confess to continue to be perplexed at your offense. Protestants in Catholic countries can complain of nothing less than English Catholics, and we both know full well the Anglican Church has always believed itself part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Zach

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Double post here-

I don't need to take a deep breath. My question about why "Roman" is so offensive was sincere, and my resolution to not use it anymore was too.

Zach

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

All of this goes to why I believe that TEC owes nothing more than a big FU to the CoE, the ABC, and all the other misbegotten rubbish who've lately made up the leadership of the CoE and the whores who've left for the Ordinariate, including the English clergy who once ministered to me as Priests and who now post on their FB pages that they are off to South London "to be ontogentically changed" or whatever crap they posted. FU!! Traitors and pieces of shit!

Posted by aredstatemystic (# 11577) on :

Has anyone called this move of the CBS into Hell?
Or, perhaps, the Ordinariate as a whole?
I'd do it but Hell scares me, frankly.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

LSK, I'm as excitable about the Great Anglican Divorce as anyone, but even I have to wonder what you're on about.

Zach

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Why do we assume that the Ordinariate would be able to simply hand the money back, as a matter of charity law?

Whilst the law can indeed be an ass at times, it's equally foolish not to comply with it.
You're probably better versed in Charity Law than I am. However I wasn't aware of any rule which prevented money from being repatriated to a charity if it had been granted on questionable grounds.

IIRC, the Trustees are technically liable for the whole sum. However the Ordinariate, once they've accepted it... I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure it could be argued either way, that the Ordinariate once they've accepted it can't give it away unless it is something that agrees with their stated aims as a Registered Charity, however equally there must be something in law for accepting illegal donations...

Meanwhile, I /suspect/ that even if they wanted to give it back, it's being spent right now and that the Ordinariate could not afford to give it back any longer.

[ 13. July 2011, 07:49: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

Triple Tiara. I don't think there's anything rude or unpleasant about the term 'Rome' - so long as one understands that it referes to a denomination rather than a geographical location. Ditto Roman. 'The English Church' is an old-fashioned alternate term for the Church of England. I know my literary style sometimes comes across as slighly redolent of an inter-war colonial bishop - maybe I was one in a previous life. I don't like the phrase 'Italian Mission' and don'r use it. It's a term used by some old school Aglo-Catholics, rarely heard nowadays, who want to be needlessly rude about their RC brethren.

Under English law as it currently stands, there are few if any real disabilities suffered by Roman Catholics. Of course the monarch may not be a member of the RC church, nor may the heir to the throne etc marry one. If the Act of Settlement were scrapped however, the only way to avoid a lengthy, complicated business of diesastablishment, would be another Act of Parliament requiring any monarch belonging ton another religious body to also declare himself/herself to be a member of the Church of England.

The grant of Arms is a matter for the Garter King of Arms. I'm aware of no prohibition on a Roman Catholic diocese having a grant of Arms and many if not all, use Arms whether so entitled or not. I cannot imagine that any great objection is raised to the practice, be it licit or otherwise.

The convention that Roman Catholic dioceses in England don't use the same names as their Anglican counterparts is a matter of courtesy as much as anything else. It also helps to avoid confusion, although somer potential confusion has been created in recent years on the Anglican side by renaming of Ripon as 'Ripon & Leeds' and Southwell as 'Southwell & Nottingham.' It's my fortune - or should I say misfortune - to live in the latter.

Silent Acolyte. There was no partisan spirit intended when I referred to those who had forsaken the English Church. Rather it was a statement of fact. They've forsaken relative comfort and the freedom to do pretty much as they pleased (except remake the church in their own image) for a new venture and the great unknown. Rome itself cannot know at this stage how the Ordinariate's going to work out or, for that matter, whether it's going to last for long.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

Oh and I forgot, there's nothing 'recent' about the Anglican Church claiming the title 'Catholic.' The Book of Common Prayer (1662) constantly uses the term, although it's spelt 'Catholick.' The term Protestant isn't used at all.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Why do we assume that the Ordinariate would be able to simply hand the money back, as a matter of charity law?

Whilst the law can indeed be an ass at times, it's equally foolish not to comply with it.
You're probably better versed in Charity Law than I am. However I wasn't aware of any rule which prevented money from being repatriated to a charity if it had been granted on questionable grounds.
IIRC, the Trustees are technically liable for the whole sum. However the Ordinariate, once they've accepted it... I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure it could be argued either way, that the Ordinariate once they've accepted it can't give it away unless it is something that agrees with their stated aims as a Registered Charity, however equally there must be something in law for accepting illegal donations...

Meanwhile, I /suspect/ that even if they wanted to give it back, it's being spent right now and that the Ordinariate could not afford to give it back any longer.

You have my essential point yes.

If the grant was illegal then it will either be returned or the Trustees held liable to make good to the charity. I'm yet to see a shred of evidence that this grant was unlawful.

If it just offends the English sense of "fair play" (slightly flippant terminology to make the point) but was legally valid, then the Ordinariate would have to justify giving it back under their charitable aims. Which I'm not convinced would be legally possible.

Which puts the Ordinariate in a really sticky situation. Is this outpour of against the Ordinariate as a whole just for being cheeky enough to ask for a grant? Hardly crime of the century.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

We are told above that the Society's object is devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and that it is a charity. If the Society's trustees believe it can best serve its objects by making a substantial donation to the Ordinariate then this is perfectly proper. It is the Society's money not the Church of England's.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
We are told above that the Society's object is devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and that it is a charity. If the Society's trustees believe it can best serve its objects by making a substantial donation to the Ordinariate then this is perfectly proper. It is the Society's money not the Church of England's.

There's a lot more than that above, aumbry!

Specifically, the charitable aims of CBS begin by stating:

quote:
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH IN THE ANGLICAN TRADITION

(not cobbled or restated by me, but cut and pasted from the Charities Commission website).

The issue is whether the (Roman Catholic) Ordinariate, which aims to preserve 'Anglican patrimony', is actually in the Anglican tradition or not.

Until various people started re-defining the meaning of 'communion' it was reasonably straightforward to define the Anglican tradition as being held by people in communion with Canterbury. Those members of the CBS who have become part of the Ordinariate are likely to have considered themselves in 'impaired' communion with Canterbury or with their diocesan bishops since 1993, and it is clear that some of them (e.g. here) believe they are taking the final vestiges of Catholic order from the Anglican tradition with them.

Legally and morally, I think they are on very thin ice.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
In these parts, don't forget, the Roman Catholic Church was outlawed and remains the only religion that has specific legislation against it.

Serious question out of ignorance: if that is so why is no Catholic (individual or organization) suing the living daylights out of the UK government? If need be via the European courts.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't need to take a deep breath. My question about why "Roman" is so offensive was sincere, and my resolution to not use it anymore was too.

Perhaps because of not being English, I don't find the term terribly offensive. Mostly it's confusing and, well, wrong. I'm not a Roman. I neither hail from today's city of Rome nor am I a citizen of the great Roman Empire of antiquity. I am a Roman Catholic, not a Catholic Roman. So if you want to abbreviate, just call me a Catholic. In writing at least, the more precise RC works well, too.

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
All of this goes to why I believe that TEC owes nothing more than a big FU to the CoE, the ABC, and all the other misbegotten rubbish who've lately made up the leadership of the CoE and the whores who've left for the Ordinariate, including the English clergy who once ministered to me as Priests and who now post on their FB pages that they are off to South London "to be ontogentically changed" or whatever crap they posted. FU!! Traitors and pieces of shit!

Misbegotten rubbish? Whores? Traitors? Pieces of shit? Are you off your meds or something?

Posted by Woodworm (# 13798) on :

Will CBS please disclose the legal advice it received?

Speaking with my lawyer's hat on, I don't see how you can possibly claim that this donation was in accordance the articles of the charity.

The opening sentence of the articles is, "The Confraternity is established for the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition..."

This was a donation to group that has chosen to leave the Anglican tradition and join the Roman Catholic church. The donation is 180 degrees from advancing the catholic faith "in the Anglican Tradition". You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to see that.

Lawyers have a way of framing their advice so that "no you can't" reads as "well, there is the faintest possibility that you might be able to, if we stand on a stool, cock our heads, squint, and hope for the best". In the client's mouth advice like that becomes "we have been advised that this is legal".

If I were an unhappy member of CBS then I would be pushing for a copy of the advice. There nothing at law that stops a charity (or anyone else) sharing the legal advice it received.

Come on CBS, show us the advice!

(PS I have nothing at all against the Ordinate. But I do dislike people bullshitting about the law.)

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Doesn't that all rather hinge on the meaning of "Anglican Tradition", Woodworm? If it had said Anglican Church or Anglican Denomination or suchlike I would be more inclined to agree with your POV, but we have numerous churches now who trace their lineage in some way from Anglicanism, and The Anglican Tradition doesn't seem too much of a stretch in describing them. Why not the ordinariate?

(Not that I've changed my views, though).

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

I guess it will ultimately depend on how well:

quote:
Originally posted by: http://www.ordinariate.org.uk/faq.htm#Are_members_of_the_Ordinariate_still_Anglicans

The central purpose of Anglicanorum coetibus is "to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared". Members of the Ordinariate will bring with them, into full communion with the Catholic Church in all its diversity and richness of liturgical rites and traditions, some aspects their own Anglican patrimony and culture.

(Bolding mine)

Stands up in a court of law.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I guess it will ultimately depend on how well:

quote:
Originally posted by: http://www.ordinariate.org.uk/faq.htm#Are_members_of_the_Ordinariate_still_Anglicans

The central purpose of Anglicanorum coetibus is "to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared". Members of the Ordinariate will bring with them, into full communion with the Catholic Church in all its diversity and richness of liturgical rites and traditions, some aspects their own Anglican patrimony and culture.

(Bolding mine)
Stands up in a court of law.

A self definition on a website will need to be tested in a Court of Law before anyone can know whether it stands or falls.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
IngoB confesses:
I'm not a Roman.

I'm guessing then that you don't want us to call you Caligula.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I guess it will ultimately depend on how well:

quote:
Originally posted by: [LINK DELETED]
The central purpose of Anglicanorum coetibus is "to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared". Members of the Ordinariate will bring with them, into full communion with the Catholic Church in all its diversity and richness of liturgical rites and traditions, some aspects their own Anglican patrimony and culture.

(Bolding mine)
Stands up in a court of law.
A self definition on a website will need to be tested in a Court of Law before anyone can know whether it stands or falls.

1.) It's not a self-definition. It's a definition by Fr Stock, General Secretary of CBCEW, who is not a member of the Ordinariate. However it's lifted from the text of Anglicanorum Coetibus itself!

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according 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 , as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

[ 13. July 2011, 14:40: Message edited by: The Man with a Stick ]

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
All of this goes to why I believe that TEC owes nothing more than a big FU to the CoE, the ABC, and all the other misbegotten rubbish who've lately made up the leadership of the CoE and the whores who've left for the Ordinariate, including the English clergy who once ministered to me as Priests and who now post on their FB pages that they are off to South London "to be ontogentically changed" or whatever crap they posted. FU!! Traitors and pieces of shit!

I do like it when folk come off the fence.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
It's not a self-definition. It's a definition by Fr Stock, General Secretary of CBCEW, who is not a member of the Ordinariate. However it's lifted from the text of Anglicanorum Coetibus itself!

Err... the Ordinariate is a group of people who are in communion with Rome, which has given a broad definition of what it is they are joining, with which they identify. Exactly how is this not a self definition?

To follow on, it isn't exactly clear to me how the same group of people, no longer in the Anglican Communion, can espouse a tradition using the definition of Anglican.

Perhaps they will end up spending the remaining £800K in court, and then the devotion to the Blessed Sacrament will not benefit from it, either in Anglican or RC churches.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

The Ordinariate is fast becoming the biggest bore since the unicorn refused to go into the ark.

The more I read about it, read comments on it and listen to certain members of it and their justification for accepting the perfidious pounds the more I am convinced that it is a flash in the pan.

Incidentally I prefer to be called a Catholic....if you ask the average person in the street what a Catholic is he or she would immediately assume that it was my Church you were talking about. If asked about the English Church, here in South Africa they would know it was the Anglican Church you were talking about.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

£1m will only keep them going so long even if they keep it.

I take it the vast majority of their new congregations are not viable with a full-time priest, so the whole thing will collapse in a decade or so.

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :

While we're at it, I really hate the term "nonconformist."

Signed, LA Dave

Roman, Catholic, ex-Tudor Church American Branch, also known as Catholick but not the Italian Mission variety, etc.

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
By joining the Ordinariate, anglo-catholics are becoming Roman Catholics. Full stop.

Quite.

Hence, they are not entitled to charitable funds donated by and for Anglicans.

Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
It's not a self-definition. It's a definition by Fr Stock, General Secretary of CBCEW, who is not a member of the Ordinariate. However it's lifted from the text of Anglicanorum Coetibus itself!
Err... the Ordinariate is a group of people who are in communion with Rome, which has given a broad definition of what it is they are joining, with which they identify. Exactly how is this not a self definition?

To follow on, it isn't exactly clear to me how the same group of people, no longer in the Anglican Communion, can espouse a tradition using the definition of Anglican.

Whether to be in the Anglican Communion is a necessary prerequisite to being "Anglican" is subject to dispute in itself, of course. [As, indeed, HRB has noted upthread.]

[ 14. July 2011, 11:38: Message edited by: Manipled Mutineer ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by badman:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
By joining the Ordinariate, anglo-catholics are becoming Roman Catholics. Full stop.
Quite.

Hence, they are not entitled to charitable funds donated by and for Anglicans.

You know that for a fact, do you? Because the legal advice the CBS received seems to say otherwise. What do you know that they don't?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You know that for a fact, do you? Because the legal advice the CBS received seems to say otherwise. What do you know that they don't?

You know full well the difference between something being legal and something being right, Chester.

Zach

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Yes I do, Zach. Which bit of badman's post made made it clear to you he was talking about morals rather than legals?

[accursed page-turn!]

[ 14. July 2011, 12:16: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Yes I do, Zach. Which bit of badman's post made made it clear to you he was talking about morals rather than legals?

Nothing, besides my own lack of interest in legals with an action looks morally dubious. That's called projection, I suppose.

Which part made you think he was talking about legals rather than morals?

Zach

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

At a push I think it's conceivable the donation might just be held to be legal, given the changes which CBS apparently made to its constitution and membership rules, just in time. However that doesn't alter the fact that it's an act of bad faith given that the members as a whole weren't consulted and the funds, given by loyal Anglicans, can't possibly have been intended to be used for such a purpose.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think anyone that really hopes for Christian love between Anglicans and former Anglicans admits that that is was unethical, Adrian.

Zach

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
The Ordinariate is fast becoming the biggest bore since the unicorn refused to go into the ark.

The more I read about it, read comments on it and listen to certain members of it and their justification for accepting the perfidious pounds the more I am convinced that it is a flash in the pan.

It is indeed totally and utterly boring [Snore]

Fuzzipeg.

I think the people so fascinated by this controversy need a life. [Votive]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

How many people have actually joined the Ordinariate?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
At a push I think it's conceivable the donation might just be held to be legal, given the changes which CBS apparently made to its constitution and membership rules, just in time. However that doesn't alter the fact that it's an act of bad faith given that the members as a whole weren't consulted and the funds, given by loyal Anglicans, can't possibly have been intended to be used for such a purpose.

Under Charity Law, the Trustees are both accountable and personally and severally liable for the operation of the individual charity. This operation must be within the broad scope of the aims of the original trust - any subsequent changes to operations and/or rules must be within the spirit of the original trust (or if there isn't one, the laid out aims and objectives). Any rule changes which were passed, without suitable consultation and with the aim of allowing a donation to be made within the near future, are pretty certainly null and void under charity law and the trustees therefore liable.

The question of the amount as a % of assets is also vital: even if the gift itself is permissable under the charity's rules (which I don't for a moment believe it is), the % of assets used in this way is likely to disqualify the gift anyway.

Sad, but it's the kind of thing we've come to expect over this and all sorts of stuff within the Anglican Communion.

If you can't stay, then by all means go, but don't expect, please, anyone to bail you out. If the RCC is that desperate then why aren't they putting their hand in their pockets? For some of them it would make a change....

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
How many people have actually joined the Ordinariate?

Sop far, around 60 clerics and above 1000 layfolk is the last set of confirmed data I remember (from Pentecost).

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
At a push I think it's conceivable the donation might just be held to be legal, given the changes which CBS apparently made to its constitution and membership rules, just in time. However that doesn't alter the fact that it's an act of bad faith given that the members as a whole weren't consulted and the funds, given by loyal Anglicans, can't possibly have been intended to be used for such a purpose.
Under Charity Law, the Trustees are both accountable and personally and severally liable for the operation of the individual charity. This operation must be within the broad scope of the aims of the original trust - any subsequent changes to operations and/or rules must be within the spirit of the original trust (or if there isn't one, the laid out aims and objectives). Any rule changes which were passed, without suitable consultation and with the aim of allowing a donation to be made within the near future, are pretty certainly null and void under charity law and the trustees therefore liable.

Just so this is crystal clear.

The objects were altered in 1999. The membership rules were relaxed in early 2009 (allowing the Council to permit membership from those outside full communion with the See of Canterbury).

The Ordinariate was announced in late 2009.

The Trustees confirmed that membership of the Ordinariate would not be incompatible with membership of the CBS in 2010

The Ordinariate was erected in 2011.

As ExplanationMark points out, a deliberate attempt to change the rules to funnel money to the Ordinariate would be very sticky. Given the rules were changed before anybody knew anything whatsoever about the Personal Ordinariate (a concept which did not even exist at the time!) that seems a hard argument to run.

The precise order of events here is important and being conveniently ignored in order to channel outrage at the trustees and the Ordinariate.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Man with a Stick, the order of events could also give the impression that the request was put in just before the Ordinariate was set up, but was already envisaged. If so, that could bear the interpretation that those making the transfer wanted to get it through when those who were leaving had already decided to go, but before they had actually done so. That is to say, they were still technically in the Anglican tradition, even though those making the donation were fully aware that purpose it was being sought was so as to help them cease to be in it. Which still seems to me to go against the objects of the charity.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
At a push I think it's conceivable the donation might just be held to be legal, given the changes which CBS apparently made to its constitution and membership rules, just in time. However that doesn't alter the fact that it's an act of bad faith given that the members as a whole weren't consulted and the funds, given by loyal Anglicans, can't possibly have been intended to be used for such a purpose.
Under Charity Law, the Trustees are both accountable and personally and severally liable for the operation of the individual charity. This operation must be within the broad scope of the aims of the original trust - any subsequent changes to operations and/or rules must be within the spirit of the original trust (or if there isn't one, the laid out aims and objectives). Any rule changes which were passed, without suitable consultation and with the aim of allowing a donation to be made within the near future, are pretty certainly null and void under charity law and the trustees therefore liable.
Just so this is crystal clear.

The objects were altered in 1999. The membership rules were relaxed in early 2009 (allowing the Council to permit membership from those outside full communion with the See of Canterbury).

The Ordinariate was announced in late 2009.

The Trustees confirmed that membership of the Ordinariate would not be incompatible with membership of the CBS in 2010

The Ordinariate was erected in 2011.

As ExplanationMark points out, a deliberate attempt to change the rules to funnel money to the Ordinariate would be very sticky. Given the rules were changed before anybody knew anything whatsoever about the Personal Ordinariate (a concept which did not even exist at the time!) that seems a hard argument to run.

The precise order of events here is important and being conveniently ignored in order to channel outrage at the trustees and the Ordinariate.

I hear what you're saying. However I don't think one should completely discount the possibility that the rules were changed in anticipation of something like the Ordinariate being announced. As I understand things, several requests were made to the Holy See over a period of time before the Pope finally agreed to set up the Ordinariate, announcing it in way which, though perhaps unintentional, would be likely to sour relations with Canterbury.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
The membership rules were relaxed in early 2009 (allowing the Council to permit membership from those outside full communion with the See of Canterbury).

The Ordinariate was announced in late 2009.

I think that this is the bit where your case starts to unravel. The membership rule change not only permitted "membership from those outside full communion with the See of Canterbury" - it also weakened drastically the ethos of the society as an Anglican one, thus making justification of this enormous grant much easier. Had the membership rule remained in place, there is no way that the grant could have been considered.

And at the time, those who were making the rule change were already in advanced planning for jumping ship and would almost certainly have been aware that the Ordinariate would begin with great financial weakness. When they looked at the sums of money being held by the Society, it must have seems like an ideal source for getting the Ordinariate off the ground.

Of course, only those in the know will be able to say exactly what was going through their minds at the time. But it is hard to believe that, when the rule change was being made, no-one had given a thought to the possibility of accessing the Society's funds.

But once again, I come back to the point that whether or not the gift is "legal" or not, I do not think it can safely be said to be morally acceptable. The people making the gift are people who will gain (albeit indirectly) from the gift. Moreover, the gift is so substantial that simple common decency would expect that the proposal be put to the full membership for approval. I know that if a Society to which I belonged (and which I had given money to) announced that it had disposed of over half its accumulated sums without attempting to consult me, I would be extremely angry - even if I approved of the cause to which the funds had gone.

In short, the money was not the trustees', to dispose of as they willed. They act on behalf of the membership and must remain accountable to the membership.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

I'm extremely annoyed by the grant, but I don't imagine anyone thought "yes £1 million will really support the Ordinariate so we'll lay in wait for it"!

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

The fact that the Ordinariate so desperately needed money just as it was being launched and was prepared to go to such a morally dubious course to obtain it does not augur well for its future.

I see the Ordinariate as being a 'transitional' society, whereby hardcore, ultramontane Anglo-Catholics can cross the Tiber whilst being able to psychologically pretend they are still, somehow, 'Anglican'. The hard cold fact of the matter is that they are Anglican no longer. They are not a special 'Rite' like the Melkites or other Eastern Rite Catholics but very much part of Western Catholicism.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch

The membership rule change not only permitted "membership from those outside full communion with the See of Canterbury" - it also weakened drastically the ethos of the society as an Anglican one, thus making justification of this enormous grant much easier. Had the membership rule remained in place, there is no way that the grant could have been considered.

Who is allowed to be a member doesn't actually change this. They are supposed to join so as to further the objects of the charity. Those are for the advancement of the Catholic faith in the Anglican tradition in six particular ways. Doshing out money to another purpose, however worthy or needy, is fraud on those purposes and the intentions of the original donors.

Looking at the six particular ways, I'd query whether even doshing out money to top up the stipends of Anglo-Catholic clergy within the Church of England was within the objects.

quote:
I know that if a Society to which I belonged (and which I had given money to) announced that it had disposed of over half its accumulated sums without attempting to consult me, I would be extremely angry - even if I approved of the cause to which the funds had gone.

Oscar I agree.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The big question is will the CBS trustees continue to support parishes remaining within the Church of England and those in communion with it?

If yes, then how can they as Roman Catholic priests do so with a clear conscience? They are giving money to ecclesial communities with null and void priestly orders to buy communion vessels? How can the Vatican swallow that? If they were giving money to support ecumenical homeless soup runs that would be one thing, they are supporting the invalid celebration of the Eucharist in a church they left because its orders were invalid. So the Vatican will sooner or later force their resignation as trustees, if the CBS members don't get their first.

If no, then that makes the whole organisation collapse, because most of its members are Anglican.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

What I find particularly interesting is that the CBS had and still has a lot of money and apparently nothing to spend it on. What is the point of an organisation like this having so much money? Surely they should be spending it in terms of their objectives rather than sitting on it and letting the interest build up?

It was stated, by one of the trustees, that this was the accumulation of interest from 19th century donations.

Why aren't they donating tabernacles, monstrances books and things to poor Anglican churches in the third world if there is not the need in the UK?

The money is surely to be spent, not hoarded!

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
What I find particularly interesting is that the CBS had and still has a lot of money and apparently nothing to spend it on. What is the point of an organisation like this having so much money? Surely they should be spending it in terms of their objectives rather than sitting on it and letting the interest build up?

It was stated, by one of the trustees, that this was the accumulation of interest from 19th century donations.

Why aren't they donating tabernacles, monstrances books and things to poor Anglican churches in the third world if there is not the need in the UK?

The money is surely to be spent, not hoarded!

Sadly, the sort of dated Anglo-Catholic 'statements' the CBS was formed to encourage are not so popular in many parts of the Third World, such as India and most of Africa, where the Evangelicals had great success.
[Big Grin]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Fuzzipeg:

quote:
Why aren't they donating tabernacles, monstrances books and things to poor Anglican churches in the third world if there is not the need in the UK?

Or how about supplies for Anglo-Catholics hiding out in priest holes in Sydney? [Snigger]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
If yes, then how can they as Roman Catholic priests do so with a clear conscience? They are giving money to ecclesial communities with null and void priestly orders to buy communion vessels? How can the Vatican swallow that? If they were giving money to support ecumenical homeless soup runs that would be one thing, they are supporting the invalid celebration of the Eucharist in a church they left because its orders were invalid.

Good point Freejack.

Furthermore, I'd even question whether giving soup to the homeless is within the CBS's objects.

quote:

Sadly, the sort of dated Anglo-Catholic 'statements' the CBS was formed to encourage are not so popular in many parts of the Third World, such as India and most of Africa, where the Evangelicals had great success.

Up to a point Sir P. The UMCA was the dominant CofE society in much of central and some parts of east Africa. This was very much the flavour of late C19 Anglo-Catholicism they took with them. One of the collaterals that attracted some of them to the mission field was that outside England there was nobody to stop them introducing advanced liturgical innovations.

I'm sure there would also be churches in South Africa and the West Indies that would be glad of a new tabernacle. Or perhaps the trustees of the CBS have to be satisfied the recipients can demonstrate that no female fingers will ever unlock its doors.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

I wasn't suggesting CBS do soup runs, merely that the Vatican might permit that sort of ecumenical support of non-eucharistic ministry to the poor.

But a group of RC priests giving chasubles and chalices to Anglican non-priests must be out of bounds?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I am keeping my beady ear to the ground and all I can hear is a crushing silence. Those of us on the edges may have our thoughts but the Ordinariate members and leaders and being unusually quiet, too quiet.

Having had an out flowing of thoughts and opinions on all issues it is great to see canonical obedience finally taking effect and silence fall.

All the best, Pyx_e.

Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :

In his (belated) letter to the members of CBS, Fr Pearson refers to us as 'associates'. Is he suggesting that we are in some sort of temporary relationship with CBS? Or what?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

There's an interesting follow-up article in the Church Times today.

The "party line" from the Ordinariate bigwigs seems to be that this is no big deal.

quote:
Mgr Newton said: “It sounds a lot of money, but in the end it’s very important to realise that £1 million is not a lot of money when you are trying eventually to get accommodation for priests. We are in a sense piggybacking on the Catholic dioceses in England and Wales’ being generous, but that won’t happen for ever.”

Hmmm. it's the Catholic dioceses being generous. But not the Anglican members of the CBS?

quote:
Mgr Broadhurst, assistant to the Ordinary....said that the £1-million donation by the CBS gave the Ordinariate “breathing space”. He said, however, that it was a “one-off”: “You’re not talking about a lot of money.”

Since when was £1,000,000 not a lot of money? Especially when it represents over half of the accumulated funds of the organisation making the donation?

quote:
When asked to respond to Anglicans who have expressed anger about the donation from the CBS, Mgr Newton said: “There are obviously some vociferous people who feel very hurt and annoyed about it. On the other hand, I think that the trustees thought this was a way to further their aims and objectives. That may be debatable, but they behaved in good faith.

That would be the trustees who have already gone to the Ordinariate and therefore stood to gain from making a grant.

It all stinks of complacency to me.

But I am interested by the admission in the article that the Ordinariate will need at least £1,000,000 a year to keep going. On the basis of existing numbers of people who have joined it, I can't see this becoming a realistic possibility. Which charity's piggy bank will they be raiding next? And what happens if they fail to make this kind of income? Do they just become assimilated into the Catholic Church? Or will we find people gradually slipping back to the C of E, and then grumbling about how their views/needs aren't being met?

And all of this assumes that the £1,000,000 per annum is an accurate figure. I've been around churches long enough to know that such sums should be regarded with a big pinch of salt. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real sum was quite a lot more.

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :

The latest report and accounts can be found here.

It lists the objects of the charity as follows:

quote:
The Confraternity exists for the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition and in particular to promote:-

* the honour due to Jesus Christ our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood,

* prayer for one another at the Eucharist,

* careful preparation for and reception of Holy Communion, including the Eucharistic fast,

* the reverent and dignified celebration of the Eucharist and the reservation and veneration of the Blessed Sacrament,

* the continuance of the catholic priesthood, and

* catholic theological teaching, learning and development.

The report goes on to say how these objects are furthered - but no part of the description appears to be consistent with a block grant to an Ordinariate of the Roman Catholic Church.

quote:
In furtherance of these objects the Confraternity organises services and meetings at national, District and local Ward level. It publishes a Manual of devotions for public and private use by Associates. The Quarterly contains Eucharistic teaching and also contains Intercessions to help Associates fulfil the second Object. It encourages adherence to the third Object by teaching through the Manual and Quarterly and by example in its own services. It gives grants of vessels and vestments to parishes at home and abroad for the reverent celebration and Reservation of the Eucharist.

It then ends with a sweep up description - but this, interestingly, locates its objects very firmly within the Church of England.

quote:
It also provides funding to other groups for purposes which reflect the Confraternity's Objects; this includes efforts to ensure that there will continue to be priests ordained in accordance with traditional Catholic order and sacraments on which Catholics can rely within the Church of England.

It then says:

quote:
No material change in these policies has been introduced during the past year

That last statement is dated 29 April 2010 (this being the most recent published report). Clearly, the £1 million grant to the Roman Catholic Church for the benefit of converts who had left the Church of England was nowhere prefigured there.

So far as the suggestion that £1 million is "not a lot of money" is concerned, the Report also appears completely inconsistent with this.

The Report says, under the heading "Finances":-

quote:
The attached financial statements show that the Confraternity's finances have suffered as a result of the present global financial situation. The trustees are confident that this will resolve itself in the mid-long term, provided that expenditure is kept within the limits of income and that the shares are not sold to finance grants.

That proviso seems to have been thrown out of the window. The income in the year to January 2010 (the most recent published accounts) was £91,727 - nowhere near enough to support a grant of £1 million without selling shares (i.e. raiding capital). There is no reason to think that the income increased 10 fold after that.

What the charity has done is to execute a handbrake turn in its policy, both as to objects and as to the prudent management of its assets, in order to support the Roman Catholic church.

[ 22. July 2011, 13:01: Message edited by: badman ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by badman:
What the charity has done is to execute a handbrake turn in its policy, both as to objects and as to the prudent management of its assets, in order to support the Roman Catholic church.

Thanks for all this. I can't see how any reasonable person could come to any other conclusion.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I still think that however well intentioned those who arranged this may be, and however well intentioned what they have done with the money, it's a fraud on the objects of the charity and the purposes for which people originally gave money to it.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I still think that however well intentioned those who arranged this may be, and however well intentioned what they have done with the money, it's a fraud on the objects of the charity and the purposes for which people originally gave money to it.

Then you should let the Charity Commission and the Police know of your concerns.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

The second pull on the handle of the one armed bandit didn't drop a penny.

Church Union

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

Why is he still signing himself +Edwin Barnes ?

He's not a bishop. His consecration was null and void. He's only a priest, so surely not a '+' ?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I wonder if the Methodist Sacramental Fellowship has thought of approaching the CBS for a donation? After all, they are, I would have thought,

quote:
men and women praying and working for a greater devotion to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood,

(as the CBS describe themselves), and can surely claim to be as much in the Anglican tradition as is the Ordinariate.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Why is he still signing himself +Edwin Barnes ?

He's not a bishop. His consecration was null and void. He's only a priest, so surely not a '+' ?

I would think that's most likely a copy and paste error from all his previous front page letters (written when an Anglican Bishop).

The general rule to not claim conspiracy until cock-up has been firmly ruled out applies here I think!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Why is he still signing himself +Edwin Barnes ?

He's not a bishop. His consecration was null and void. He's only a priest, so surely not a '+' ?

I know a number of non-bishop clergy (RC, Anglican, Orthie, as well as a Presbyterian) who sign themselves thus.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I thought presbyters properly put the cross after their names, not preceding the name as is true for bishops.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Is the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament in the U.S. a separate organization, or has it been affected by this massive transfer?

I was in my early 20s when I was admitted to the "CBS", and was still probably still in my 20s when, instead of paying annual dues, I decided to become a life member for the enormous sum of $25.00. Since then I have received the quarterly Intercession Paper with no further outlay. Considering what inflation has done since the 1970s, I was beginning to feel like a freeloader for not having made a subsequent contribution. But if the society has that kind of money to ship out to another outfit that I have not joined, and which is a bit controversial and divisive-- well, my conscience is suddenly at ease.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Why is he still signing himself +Edwin Barnes ?

He's not a bishop. His consecration was null and void. He's only a priest, so surely not a '+' ?
I would think that's most likely a copy and paste error from all his previous front page letters (written when an Anglican Bishop).

The general rule to not claim conspiracy until cock-up has been firmly ruled out applies here I think!

More than likely, I'd have thought. And note how the message is addressed "from Fr Edwin Barnes", not Bishop.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I thought presbyters properly put the cross after their names, not preceding the name as is true for bishops.

I was not commending their errors, but merely reporting them.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Is the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament in the U.S. a separate organization, or has it been affected by this massive transfer?

I was in my early 20s when I was admitted to the "CBS", and was still probably still in my 20s when, instead of paying annual dues, I decided to become a life member for the enormous sum of $25.00. Since then I have received the quarterly Intercession Paper with no further outlay. Considering what inflation has done since the 1970s, I was beginning to feel like a freeloader for not having made a subsequent contribution. But if the society has that kind of money to ship out to another outfit that I have not joined, and which is a bit controversial and divisive-- well, my conscience is suddenly at ease.

CBS in the USA is an entirely separate and autonomous province. I don't know what the membership criteria are, but if memory serves, I think the organisation (of which I was once a member) had individual Lutheran and RC members as far back as the 1980s).

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Why is he still signing himself +Edwin Barnes ?

He's not a bishop. His consecration was null and void. He's only a priest, so surely not a '+' ?

on the Officials page he is described as Bishop Edwin Barnes. He clearly considers himself entitled to lawned sleeves.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Come off it - when do you suppose that was last updated?

The very fact that the one piece that we know to be penned by Fr Barnes since his reception into the Catholic Church dubs him "Fr" tells you more than how he's (outdatedly) described on the officers' page, wouldn't you say?

Some people are energetically determined to believe the worst of Ordinariate clergy. I won't speculate aloud as to why.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Why is he still signing himself +Edwin Barnes ?

He's not a bishop. His consecration was null and void. He's only a priest, so surely not a '+' ?
on the Officials page he is described as Bishop Edwin Barnes. He clearly considers himself entitled to lawned sleeves.

There's a neat trick to see when a page was last updated.

Go to the page and type (removing the quotation marks)

"javascript:alert(document.lastModified)"

As you will see, that page has not been updated since 2008.

And, yes, what Chesterbelloc said.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Some people are energetically determined to believe the worst of Ordinariate clergy. I won't speculate aloud as to why.

If the Ordinariate clergy want to deny the grace of Christ bestowed on them by accepting reordination, that's their business. I'll simply disagree with it. But that has nothing to do with finding ripping off the flock they are leaving behind, as these schmucks have done, morally repugnant.

Zach

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If the Ordinariate clergy want to deny the grace of Christ bestowed on them by accepting reordination, that's their business. I'll simply disagree with it.

I hold no brief for the Ordinariate, and would never think of joining, but as I understand it that is a gross misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on orders. Doesn't the (re)ordination rite incorporate a prayer of thanksgiving for the candidate's previous ministry, with at least the implication that this was a means of grace both for the minister and the people he ministered to?

There have been many ministers received into the C of E from non-episcopal churches, who have all been required to submit to episcopal (re)ordination. Does that imply a repudiation of their previous ministry? If so, for an Anglican to criticise the Catholic position brings to mind smoke-blackened pots and kettles.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There have been many ministers received into the C of E from non-episcopal churches, who have all been required to submit to episcopal (re)ordination. Does that imply a repudiation of their previous ministry? If so, for an Anglican to criticise the Catholic position brings to mind smoke-blackened pots and kettles.

Some, indeed, have been received without reordination, and some have been conditionally reordained, depending on the theology of the bishop/province. I know of at least a couple of people who have just been received not reordained, and one who was conditionally reordained in one Global South province...

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Really? Where and when? That is news to me. It wouldn't happen in the C of E and I doubt if the proposed Anglican Covenant would allow it either.

Anyway, it doesn't affect my point which is that Anglicans who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at Roman windows.

[ 31. July 2011, 15:15: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Really? Where and when? That is news to me. It wouldn't happen in the C of E and I doubt if the proposed Anglican Covenant would allow it either.

I think as far as I'll go is to describe them as an evangelical Global South province and leave it at that. It's pretty broad. The bishop (then Presiding/Archbishop of the province) more or less did what he wanted to do to see the Kingdom expanded. Many Evangelicals don't have much patience with the idea of Apostolic Succession as necessary for valid sacraments, although useful. And as I say, one of them was conditionally re-ordained when he actually took a prominent position within the diocese in question rather than simply being a clergyman with permission to officiate at Anglican Eucharistic services who was doing work other than stipendary ministry.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Some people are energetically determined to believe the worst of Ordinariate clergy.

I hope I am not considered to be in that group. I wish them the best, I know, like, have served under, been taught by and ministered with many of them. (though tbh some are a bit precious, but hey aren’t we all sometimes)

However I am hurt and disappointed by the manner of their leaving. No one was begging them to stay (I wish them nothing but good in their new home) but the half truths (“losing” their pensions/houses), the confusion over the message that “farewell Masses” sends, the years of serving in a church that had ordained women already, the “one true church” stuff, the years of politics to try and ensure the biggest possible numbers leaving, the “C of E is doomed” stuff, the plea for buildings which could never have happened, the CBS cock-up. Not taking care about the “+” is just a further example.

It has been very difficult to be on the edge of all this. I can’t even call myself catholic anymore, Sacramental, Incarnational, Mysterious yes, but catholic, no. I am sure we will all get over it but forgive me is my struggle seems like I am too quick to “think the worst.”

I just wish that some would see that most of my list above is/was easily avoidable and therefore could be construed as deliberately hurtful (I am sure it is not meant to be but ..............) Mostly this feels like the arguments I had with my teenage kids as they prepared to flee the nest. Think the worst, no. Struggling and dealing with what is left yes.

All the best, Pyx_e.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Really? Where and when? That is news to me. It wouldn't happen in the C of E and I doubt if the proposed Anglican Covenant would allow it either.
I think as far as I'll go is to describe them as an evangelical Global South province and leave it at that. It's pretty broad. The bishop (then Presiding/Archbishop of the province) more or less did what he wanted to do to see the Kingdom expanded. Many Evangelicals don't have much patience with the idea of Apostolic Succession as necessary for valid sacraments, although useful. And as I say, one of them was conditionally re-ordained when he actually took a prominent position within the diocese in question rather than simply being a clergyman with permission to officiate at Anglican Eucharistic services who was doing work other than stipendary ministry.

I won't prolong this tangent other than to say that I specifically said re-ordination would be obligatory in the C of E. So C of E Anglicans who accuse Ordinariate clerics of hypocrisy, in this respect at least, are on shaky ground. That's not to say that I don't sympathise with Pyx_e's rant otherwise. As I don't know anyone, clergy or lay, who is joining the Ordinariate I don't feel the same emotions I suppose.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I hold no brief for the Ordinariate, and would never think of joining, but as I understand it that is a gross misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on orders. Doesn't the (re)ordination rite incorporate a prayer of thanksgiving for the candidate's previous ministry, with at least the implication that this was a means of grace both for the minister and the people he ministered to?

There have been many ministers received into the C of E from non-episcopal churches, who have all been required to submit to episcopal (re)ordination. Does that imply a repudiation of their previous ministry? If so, for an Anglican to criticise the Catholic position brings to mind smoke-blackened pots and kettles.

It is the position of the Anglican Church that our orders and sacraments are fully catholic- retaining the charisms bestowed on the apostles by Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church may think it flatters us to believe that our rites might perhaps be agents of grace, but reordination, reconfirmation, and reabsolution of sins is a de facto statement that these sacraments were absent.

Insofar that catholic understanding proposes that the sacraments of the Church are agents of God's salvation, then denying these sacraments is denying God's offer of salvation in these sacraments. It is one thing if one has come to believe that Anglicanism has lost its apostolic nature and does not have these sacraments. But it seems a contradiction to me to submit to ordination if one believes he is already ordained- ordained sacramentally, and already possesses the charism of the apostles.

If a Methodist minister becomes an Anglican priest, then he must accept that the Anglican Church does not see is orders as valid for him or herself. Certainly he cannot believe that the Methodist Eucharist was valid, insofar as Anglican Eucharistic theology rests on its belief in its apostolicity. It is indeed the pot calling the kettle black, because I think intellectual integrity demands the same thing of a Methodist minister turned Anglican priest as it does an Anglican priest turned Roman Catholic priest. In both cases there does not necessarily have to be an admission that one's previous ministry was graceless. But there is an admission that the ministry was not fully apostolic in nature.

Zach

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Right. So, in other words, what Angloid said.

Pyx_e, thanks for that honest and open post - it jives.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Chester, are you so utterly determined to think well of the Ordinariate that you approve of how these particular clergy ripped off the flock they are leaving behind and basically destroyed a charity they were entrusted with?

Zach

[ 01. August 2011, 13:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

CB and I would deny the very premise of your leading question that the "flock" was being "ripped off" or that a charity was "destroyed."

In any event, I am glad to see that Newton isn't backing down, isn't apologizing, because he has no reason to back down and no reason to apologize. Tough titties to the AffCaths and the Piskies as far I as am concerned.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
(snip) ...I think intellectual integrity demands the same thing of a Methodist minister turned Anglican priest as it does an Anglican priest turned Roman Catholic priest. In both cases there does not necessarily have to be an admission that one's previous ministry was graceless. But there is an admission that the ministry was not fully apostolic in nature.

Zach

I'm sure that you're right and it makes sense to me that someone who feels driven (or called) to move from one denomination to another would be able to look back at their previous ministry and say "although I now believe that my former ministry was not fully apostolic in nature, at that time I was exercising that ministry in good faith" and those who say "My former ministry was not fully apostolic in nature and I am going to refrain from exercising sacramental ministry until I have been ordained into what I now believe to be an apostolic church"

I am more puzzled by those who found themselves able to say "I now believe that my present ministry is not fully apostolic in nature but I am going to continue to exercise this sacramental ministry right up until the point that I leave for what I now believe to be an apostolic church". The whole idea of celebrating a "farewell Mass" with integrity confuses me.

anne

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

Certainly he cannot believe that the Methodist Eucharist was valid, insofar as Anglican Eucharistic theology rests on its belief in its apostolicity.

This Anglican sees Methodist ministry as apostolic in the same sense as Anglican or Roman.

quote:

... I think intellectual integrity demands the same thing of a Methodist minister turned Anglican priest as it does an Anglican priest turned Roman Catholic priest. [...] an admission that the ministry was not fully apostolic in nature.

That's what the rules of the Church of England demand. I wouldn't say its the same thing as "intellectual integrity". I wish our rules did not demand that. It is unneccessary, and it is demeaning to our brothers and sisters in other denominations.

The reason that I am an Anglican is nothing to do with any notion of magic powers being passed down from bishop to presbyter, and I do not think that Anglican ministry is in any important sense more "apostolic" than Methodist or Presbyterian, or less "apostolic" than Catholic or Orthodox.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
CB and I would deny the very premise of your leading question that the "flock" was being "ripped off" or that a charity was "destroyed."

I'll let CB speak for himself, since I hope he possesses less horrid ideas. You, on the other hand, show your hand. Why don't Anglicans count as a flock? Are we not followers of Christ, even if we are mistaken on the nature of the Church? How is leaving 95% of this society's members with only 45% of the funds not ripping them off? How is giving 55% of the charity's funds to a completely unrelated effort not destroying it?

I suspect why you say these things, but I'll let you speak for yourself.

Zach

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

The problem, Zach, is that you are incredibly tribal and have a knee-jerk defensiveness against the RC Church. I understand that - I'm probably the same as an RC.

But you get into massive trouble when you try to justify yourself on principled grounds, because it just doesn't work. Take the issue of the "flock". So you get all uppity saying "Why don't Anglicans count as a flock? Are we not followers of Christ," That's a fair question - except that you screw yourself with it. For the question I would put back to you is: now that they are no longer in the Anglican Church, do these people not count as part of the "flock"? Are they not followers of Christ?

Rather just come straight out with it and say "they're not in my team so I have to beat them and be nasty to them". That, at least would be honest.

You do the same on the matter of ordination. You mount a very high horse and charge. But as Angloid very gently pointed out, the Anglican Church has similar positions about others. You rather pirouetted in your response to him, and Chesterbelloc was very succinct and to the point in response. But you had charged your high horse into a terrible swamp and so you tried to deflect attention from that by lunging out at him (first post on the top of this page).

Again, rather just be honest and say "they're not in my team so I loathe them".

None of this has anything to do with the principles at issue in this discussion. But you can't throw in emotive and derogatory language and then claim to be dealing with principles,

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
That's not to say that I don't sympathise with Pyx_e's rant otherwise. As I don't know anyone, clergy or lay, who is joining the Ordinariate I don't feel the same emotions I suppose.

I don't think it was a 'rant'. I feel in the same way part of the time and have also begun to believe that the very notion 'anglo catholic' is one vast big myth, a fantasy world.

I have many friends who have go to the RCC and I wish they'd have stayed but sympathise with their reasons for going.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

Certainly he cannot believe that the Methodist Eucharist was valid, insofar as Anglican Eucharistic theology rests on its belief in its apostolicity.
This Anglican sees Methodist ministry as apostolic in the same sense as Anglican or Roman.

So does this one, and I'm much nearer the top of the candle than Ken is.

On the other hand, all our ministries are in some way deficient because we are in a divided church. I believe that unity without an episcopally ordered church could never happen, so although our episcopate is questioned by much of the rest of Christendom, it's still nearer the ideal and a step towards unity, and incorporating those undoubtedly apostolic ministries of other traditions into that structure seems like the right way forward.

But maybe I'm just rationalising my anglo-catholic prejudice!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The problem, Zach, is that you are incredibly tribal and have a knee-jerk defensiveness against the RC Church. I understand that - I'm probably the same as an RC.

But you get into massive trouble when you try to justify yourself on principled grounds, because it just doesn't work. Take the issue of the "flock". So you get all uppity saying "Why don't Anglicans count as a flock? Are we not followers of Christ," That's a fair question - except that you screw yourself with it. For the question I would put back to you is: now that they are no longer in the Anglican Church, do these people not count as part of the "flock"? Are they not followers of Christ?

Rather just come straight out with it and say "they're not in my team so I have to beat them and be nasty to them". That, at least would be honest.

You do the same on the matter of ordination. You mount a very high horse and charge. But as Angloid very gently pointed out, the Anglican Church has similar positions about others. You rather pirouetted in your response to him, and Chesterbelloc was very succinct and to the point in response. But you had charged your high horse into a terrible swamp and so you tried to deflect attention from that by lunging out at him (first post on the top of this page).

Again, rather just be honest and say "they're not in my team so I loathe them".

None of this has anything to do with the principles at issue in this discussion. But you can't throw in emotive and derogatory language and then claim to be dealing with principles,

I have enough honesty about myself to admit that I can be very tribal about this Great Anglican Divorce, but I cannot see that I have been so here. Indeed, I have been very careful to not go into my customary hysterics. The does not mean that I have to accept every Ordinariate priest's actions, and it does not mean I cannot be distressed about general sentiments in the Ordinariate over all.

I have said nothing more, of the Ordinariate, than accusing these particular priests of morally questionable finances. Do you disagree?

As for Angloid, I did not dance out of it at all. My problem is not at all based on a sense of unfairness about the Catholic Church's rejection of Anglican ordination. I simply don't care about that- if I cared what the pope thought, wouldn't I be a Roman Catholic? "My dancing" was pointing out that his rebuttal had nothing to do with me. This talk of grace in Anglican sacraments is a non-starter, since Anglicans believe they are full sacraments and not mere agents of grace.

Why is the distinction between sacrament and "agent of grace" so important? Is this a serious question from a Catholic?

Can there be a valid Eucharist if the priest does not intend to perform a Eucharist? If an Anglican priest on his way to the Ordinariate does not believe he is validly ordained, he does not believe he has the charism to perform the Eucharist, then he cannot believe he is confecting the Eucharist, and therefore is there a Eucharist at his farewell mass at all? In this light, Anglicans have every right to be distressed at such a lack of intellectual integrity! Imagine a dying man being given a false absolution and false Eucharist just because an Anglican priest doesn't want to lose his pension if he quits!

Zach

[ 02. August 2011, 17:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
That's not to say that I don't sympathise with Pyx_e's rant otherwise. As I don't know anyone, clergy or lay, who is joining the Ordinariate I don't feel the same emotions I suppose.
I don't think it was a 'rant'. I feel in the same way part of the time and have also begun to believe that the very notion 'anglo catholic' is one vast big myth, a fantasy world.

I have many friends who have go to the RCC and I wish they'd have stayed but sympathise with their reasons for going.

I should have chosen my words more carefully. It was not a rant. I also accept that Pyx_e might be more emotionally involved than I am, and might feel in some way betrayed.

I don't think there is any contradiction or myth involved in being a 'catholic anglican'. Many of us have a great deal of respect for the (Roman) Catholic Church, and have a great deal in common theologically, spiritually and liturgically... in some ways, more than with some of our fellow-anglicans.

However it has never been part of Anglican teaching that the Papacy is essential to Catholic faith. Maybe we are parasites in accepting a large part of the tradition that has grown up under the Papacy, while opting out when it suits us. But I think we have a vital role in attempting to reconcile certain new developments (the Dead Horse matters in particular) with the Tradition; to keep alive the discussions that Rome has silenced. At the same time, by our sympathy with the greater part of that tradition we can witness to the need for Catholic unity to our fellow-Anglicans.

If 'anglo-catholic' means being part of a reactionary sect, either within Anglicanism or within the Ordinariate, I repudiate the term. But if it means trying to keep open a bridge across the Reformation divide, I'll happily describe myself as such.

Posted by Poppy Tupper (# 16571) on :

quote:
this Great Anglican Divorce

Is it a great Anglican divorce? It looks more like a minor Anglican teenage strop to me. I bet we'll see the first of the clerical returns before Chrizzy.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Loads of good points and questions Zach. In answer to most of them I would have to say "I don't know".

I don't know what I think about the CBS grant. I see the objections very clearly, and I know that if I had been in the same position I would have done otherwise. On the other hand, I don't think "fleecing the flock" is what has happened. It seems very few Anglicans were remotely concerned with the CBS until this happened. It was always a rather Anglo-Papalist organisation and so I can see the linear progression of the Ordinariate with that. I suggested very early on in this thread that it smacked of a scorched earth policy - and yet that does not seem to be the tone of any Ordinariate material. So my suspicion becomes that the objection is part of the general anti-papalism which is in the Anglican genes.

I think I would want to say that from what I have seen those who left tried to leave the CofE well, but their farewell has been met with a rebuff. It's not a new phenomenon. John Henry Newman famously wrote about it in "The Parting of Friends". I have counselled those I know in the Ordinariate to just let go of the Anglican Church because they are unlikely to get any warm sentiments from those they have left behind. Not exactly shake the dust from your feet, but don't look back, look forward.

As to the question of sacraments and how could they carry on, knowing that they would soon be ordained again. It's a complex issue. Certainly as a Catholic I would not say to a cleric of another Church who wanted to become a Catholic "you have to stop practising your ministry at once". I know some of the more extreme ex-Anglicans adopt a very hardline approach to their years as Anglicans, describing them as akin to shooting blanks. I think that's silly. I think there is far more of a progression from one place to another - a lot like the road to Emmaus rather than the road to Damascus.

So at bottom I guess I am more trusting of good faith rather than trying to look for hobgoblins and wicked intentions. Principles need to be firm, but how they play out in the lives of individuals is not usually simple and straightforward. (I am not talking about the CBS issue here).

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

It's hard to say "That's how the CBS was going and everyone knew it" when the vast majority of its members are not going that way.

My objections are not anti-papalism- they are based on the belief that so long as they are leaders of Anglican parishes and Anglican charities they have a moral duty to do what is best for that which has been entrusted to them. It's in the very meaning of the name "pastor."

What would you tell a Roman Catholic priest if he confessed to you that he did not believe he was celebrating the Eucharist at Sunday mass?

Zach

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Heheh that's an easy one: it doesn't matter what he personally believes. What matters is what the Church believes. As long as the people are there needing his sacramental service, he needs to get on with it.

There are days I don't believe in God, don't want to be a priest anymore, am fed-up with the latest scandal and just want to wash my hands of the whole bloody business of being a Catholic priest. But I still turn up at the altar because the people need me and it's not all about me.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
There are days I don't believe in God, don't want to be a priest anymore, am fed-up with the latest scandal and just want to wash my hands of the whole bloody business of being a Catholic priest. But I still turn up at the altar because the people need me and it's not all about me.

That's not the same thing. In that situation you still believe you are doing as the Church does. I am talking specifically about a priest that consciously believes he is not performing a Eucharist as he goes through the motions.

Let's be more particular. Would you send such a priest to offer a dying man last rites?

Zach

[ 02. August 2011, 18:32: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Okay. There are days when I am in that situation as well. I thought not believing in God was big enough to cover that one.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Maybe I just have Roman Catholic theology wrong here. Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church teach that a valid sacrament requires, besides the proper words, the priest's intent to do as the Church does?

Zach

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

And yes, I would send such a priest off to give the Last Rites.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

One intends to do what the Church does. The Church makes up for what is lacking in one's own disposition (known as ecclesia supplet )

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

This is probably an ex opere operato issue.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
One intends to do what the Church does. The Church makes up for what is lacking in one's own disposition (known as ecclesia supplet )

That intent is what I am saying is lacking when a priest intent on converting performs an Anglican Eucharist.

Zach

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Very likely - but is it a better course for him to deprive the congregation of access to the sacraments by just ceasing forthwith?

[ 02. August 2011, 18:43: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Very likely - but does he deprive the congregation of access to the sacraments by just ceasing forthwith?

I study systematic theology, not the sacraments, so you tell me. I suspect our common answer is "We don't know."

Zach

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Sorry, we cross-posted and I tweaked my post because I realised it was not clear.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Very likely - but is it a better course for him to deprive the congregation of access to the sacraments by just ceasing forthwith?

This is what happens when people discuss in forums what they ought to discuss in real time.

I would say that a sacrament performed by a priest of dubious intent is better than no sacrament at all, but a sacrament of a priest of less dubious intent is even better.

Zach

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

We are agreed.

And I'm off to dinner. [Big Grin]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I am not saying that a priest has to quit the second he starts to doubt the validity of Anglicanism. But if one has resolved once and for all that Anglicanism is not at all heir to the Church founded by Christ, and that his ordination and the Eucharist he is performing are invalid, then I can't see he has any business continuing to perform Anglican sacraments. A "farewell mass" is not an emergency that could justify that amount of charity in matters of doctrine. I agree intellectual rigor needs some give, but I think "farewell masses" from future Ordinariate clergy are asking for far too much give.

Zach

[ 02. August 2011, 19:12: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

In support of Zach; not least because even if a Methodist or a Baptist ends up in the C of E and gets “re-ordained” we still believe every Eucharist she presided at before then was true. And I frequently receive from local Methodists, though never (despite offering hospitality to a local RC congregation for 27 years) from a Roman Catholic.

There is no escaping the crux of it. The Ordinariate clergy now belong to a church that does not see any Eucharist but is own as valid. Their church teaches that every Eucharist they presided at before their ordination into the RC church was invalid. Yet they knowingly continued to celebrate the Mass in the full knowledge they were leaving. It’s potty.

All the best Pyx_e.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
In support of Zach; not least because even if a Methodist or a Baptist ends up in the C of E and gets “re-ordained” we still believe every Eucharist she presided at before then was true. And I frequently receive from local Methodists, though never (despite offering hospitality to a local RC congregation for 27 years) from a Roman Catholic.

There is no escaping the crux of it. The Ordinariate clergy now belong to a church that does not see any Eucharist but is own as valid. Their church teaches that every Eucharist they presided at before their ordination into the RC church was invalid. Yet they knowingly continued to celebrate the Mass in the full knowledge they were leaving. It’s potty.

All the best Pyx_e.

The Anglican Church requires reordination of Methodist ministers because not every Anglican believes a Methodist pastor is validly ordained. I don't. But once again, my objections are not based in a sense of injustice at all, so accusations of having two standards are missing what my objections are.

Back to the subject, I can't really see the local Roman Catholic bishop being involved in this conversation:

Roman Catholic Priest: "I think the Roman Catholic Church is invalid and I'm going to be a Unitarian Universalist yogi. I've been saying so at mass every week for the last 3 months."

Roman Catholic Bishop: "All the best to you. Let's put your farewell mass next Sunday then? We can have a cold cut tray after the service."

Zach

[ 02. August 2011, 19:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Poppy Tupper (# 16571) on :

quote:
Yet they knowingly continued to celebrate the Mass in the full knowledge they were leaving. It’s potty.

Potty? Just fucking dishonest.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Heheh that's an easy one: it doesn't matter what he personally believes. What matters is what the Church believes. As long as the people are there needing his sacramental service, he needs to get on with it.

There are days I don't believe in God, don't want to be a priest anymore, am fed-up with the latest scandal and just want to wash my hands of the whole bloody business of being a Catholic priest. But I still turn up at the altar because the people need me and it's not all about me.

That sounds straightforward enough in theory and it chimes with the Anglican article on the 'Unworthiness of Ministers.' However at what point does one separate 'the church' from the individuals who together make it up, clergy and laity, who constitute "the blessed company of all faithful people?"

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara
Very likely - but is it a better course for him to deprive the congregation of access to the sacraments by just ceasing forthwith?

But unless he believes that continuing to celebrate as a member of the Church of England is something that God regards as an outrageous sin, offering false fire, perhaps he ought to be asking whether he should be deserting his flock just to satisfy his private sense of ecclesiological purity. After all, there's something very disturbing happening if he hasn't thought that God both called him to serve them and gave them to him as his personal responsibility.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
In support of Zach; not least because even if a Methodist or a Baptist ends up in the C of E and gets “re-ordained” we still believe every Eucharist she presided at before then was true. And I frequently receive from local Methodists, though never (despite offering hospitality to a local RC congregation for 27 years) from a Roman Catholic.

Aw shucks. You were nice to them Catholics and yet that still did not persuade them that your Church had not significantly altered the Catholic understanding of Holy Orders and the manner of conferring them.

And the Methodists and Baptists are nice to you. So you are happy to receive communion from them, without blinking to try and determine what it is you are doing. Are you celebrating the Catholic sacrifice or the protestant memorial meal? And of course you won't describe their sacraments as "invalid" as that term is largely meaningless in Anglican terms.

But still, if it's all hunky-dory and the same thing anyway, I wonder how you do explain the fact that once one of those Methodists or Baptists become an Anglican, they cannot continue to celebrate those "valid" eucharists but have to wait to be re-ordained. Why bother of it's all "valid" anyway.

Or does one just have to be nice to make it all okay?

[ 02. August 2011, 21:41: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

It has been very difficult to be on the edge of all this. I can’t even call myself catholic anymore, Sacramental, Incarnational, Mysterious yes, but catholic, no.

Well said, Pyx_e. I hope that one outcome of all this is that people in the C of E realise that we can be authentically Sacramental, Incarnational and Mysterious (and indeed, small-c-catholic) without having to be, or to pretend to be, Roman.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
Well said, Pyx_e. I hope that one outcome of all this is that people in the C of E realise that we can be authentically Sacramental, Incarnational and Mysterious (and indeed, small-c-catholic) without having to be, or to pretend to be, Roman.

Capital M Mysterious, perhaps, insofar as that means nothing. I'll stick with the holy, catholic faith- no bishops, no Church, no Eucharist. Does that make me Roman?

Zach

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Well said Laurence. It will be a relief to us all. And I hope end all the posturing about "Romans".

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
]Capital M Mysterious, perhaps, insofar as that means nothing. I'll stick with the holy, catholic faith- no bishops, no Church, no Eucharist. Does that make me Roman?

Zach

Yes! You're getting very much closer to the dark side. <insert Darth Vader breathing special effects here> [Snigger]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

If I was an Anglican priest waiting to be received into the RCC I don't know what I would think, or what sort of theology I would use to express my belief. But I do know that the people I was currently called to serve would be my immediate concern, and I would not want to cause them (either those who were staying or those who were leaving with me) any unnecessary distress.

I thought one of the virtues of Anglicanism was being unwilling to make 'windows into men's souls' [Elizabeth 1]. What makes people so sure all of a sudden that the departing priests are hypocrites? After all, they are not becoming witches or indulging in human sacrifice, just joining another part of God's Church. Though for many 'liberal' Anglicans that would be preferable to becoming a Papist.

[ET correct grammar, and clarify my first statement: I am an Anglican priest but I am not contemplating joining the RCC.]

[ 02. August 2011, 21:59: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara
But still, if it's all hunky-dory and the same thing anyway, I wonder how you do explain the fact that once one of those Methodists or Baptists become an Anglican, they cannot continue to celebrate those "valid" eucharists but have to wait to be re-ordained. Why bother of it's all "valid" anyway.

But if one isn't an RC, isn't persuaded by the arguments about papal authority and so is not obliged to believe a particular understanding of orders and the eucharist because that comes with that particular package, one might ask oneself whether this has to be about 'validity' in the heiratic sense at all. It is if you are RC. It isn't necessarily if you are not.

Either way, though, it is about the conferring of an authority that is recognised within ones own ecclesial community. A person who migrates from the CofE ecclesial community to the Roman Catholic one, or vice versa, or likewise between Methodist and CofE is fitting in with whatever their new ecclesial home requires to enable them to be authorised to exercise ministry within it. If they have not been so recognised, what they do will not be 'valid', but that does not necessarily require that 'valid' has to mean what I suspect Triple Tiara means by it.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

That's a reasonable hypothetical.

Except the CofE does not re-ordain RC priests. How does that argument work in that situation?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The catholic faith doesn't teach that the ability to confect the Eucharist is a mere role, but a charism. Ordination of a Methodist pastor into the catholic priesthood is not merely "recognizing" him or her as an Anglican priest, but imparting on him or her the charism necessary to celebrate a valid Eucharist (etc.). It is an ontological change from layman to priest.

Whatever graces a Methodist pastor might have had in his or her ministry, the Anglican Church does not recognize him as having the graces (full graces, if you like) of a priest of the catholic Church.

For the record, I am a former Methodist.

Zach

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

Ahhh, but here's the rub. When I was an Episcopalian, I took Zack's view that there was no ontological change in ordained Protestant non-Anglican clergy, but there was in Anglican clergy. But, over time, it seems less than clear to me that it is authentic Anglican doctrine that there is such an ontological change. Not sure the English reformers believed that, and I know many leading Anglican evangelical divines did not. (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes may have been an exception). To put it crudely, why in Anglican terms don't Methodists, Lutherans, Moravarians have "the zap," but Roman Catholics do have "the zap," and if Lutherans, Moravians, etc. lack "the zap" then why is there intercommunion with those bodies in the first place?

I don't think the Catholic Church requires a belief in the Real Absence of Our Lord on Anglican altars, even if she deems such sacraments to be invalid. For instance, if God wants to give Carter Heywood "zap" power, we are in no position to say that He cannot, but we have no reason to believe that she has (or can) "zap," since her ability to "zap" is, from the Catholic point of view, outside of God's covenant to his Church, as understood by Catholics. Thus, I see no reason for the Church to be any less patient with Anglican priests who are currently celebrating Anglican masses with their Anglican flocks until (with approval of Catholic authority) a moment in time when there is preparation for full communion and, as the case may be, Catholic ordination.

I see no reason to put Anglican priests as commiting sacramental sacrilege if they do/or sacramental sacrilege if they don't situation. Leave that to the 19th century and to the writers of the Anglican Continuum blog, some of whom like to make these sorts of arguments (for disingenuous self-regarding reasons, IMO).

[ 02. August 2011, 22:48: Message edited by: Shadowhund ]

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

First off, could we leave aside 'validity' when we are speaking from an Anglican perspective? 'Validity' is not really in the Anglican lexicon (the BCP does not purport to set out 'valid' Sacraments, but only the 'the procuring of Reverence, and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God').

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
There is no escaping the crux of it. The Ordinariate clergy now belong to a church that does not see any Eucharist but is own as valid. Their church teaches that every Eucharist they presided at before their ordination into the RC church was invalid. Yet they knowingly continued to celebrate the Mass in the full knowledge they were leaving. It’s potty.

All the best Pyx_e.

I think this is where we must enter the land of teh convient fiction. Many ultramontane Anglican clergy contented themselves with the belief that they were catholic christians, doing as the (catholic) church intended, who happened to be in the Church of England. Now they are catholic Christians in the Catholic Church, still doing as the church intends.

So from that standpoint, the question of which church you are in, or to which you give the CBS money, is purely academic.

This is not, incidentally, a view to which I subscribe, but I think one has to try to go through the looking glass a bit to see where these people are coming from.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
First off, could we leave aside 'validity' when we are speaking from an Anglican perspective? 'Validity' is not really in the Anglican lexicon (the BCP does not purport to set out 'valid' Sacraments, but only the 'the procuring of Reverence, and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God').

That very important Anglicans have been Protestants through and through should be obvious to everyone, as much as it might have surprised Shadowhund.

However, I am not sure how to explain the Anglican practice of reordaining Methodist ministers, but not Roman Catholic priests, without referring to things like validity and charisms and all that.

At any rate, I believe it, and I am in the business of discussing my understanding of the Anglican Faith and not anyone else's.

Zach

[ 02. August 2011, 23:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The Ordinariate clergy now belong to a church that does not see any Eucharist but is own as valid. Their church teaches that every Eucharist they presided at before their ordination into the RC church was invalid.
All the best Pyx_e.

Is it really this simple? If so, why was it, when Bishop Graham Leonard went over to Rome, he was not reordained as deacon (either absolutely or conditionally), and he was reordained as priest only "sub conditione." (Rome did not even bother to investigate his episcopal ordination, as they had no intention of having a married bishop). I have to ask if "valid" and "invalid" are not being thrown about a little too simply here; I think it's perhaps a more complex issue than some have acknowledged.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

With respect to this tangent, Anglicanorum Coetibus and the accompanying norms permit priests of the Ordinariate to celebrate their priestly anniversary using the date of their Anglican priesting. This would suggest a recognition of something or the other, if not a recognition of the assurance that RCs would have with their own priests.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
This would suggest a recognition of something or the other

Not really. "You can have your 20-year cold cut tray on any year you want... so long as you let us reordain you."

Maybe I'm just being over particular on this issue... but considering the claims we make about the sacraments, that they are Christ's offer of salvation to the world... aren't our sacrament something we ought to be particular about?

Zach

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Well, Zach, I generally agree with you, and would be ready to push the logic if B16 were in the room. However, in the history of Anglican/RC relations, these signs--- never meaningless-- have a lot of significance, and are an advance, especially when one considers B16's own theological (over) rigour.

But, if I am asked, I want a lot more. I will mention it the next time I am at lunch with His Holiness.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
With respect to this tangent, Anglicanorum Coetibus and the accompanying norms permit priests of the Ordinariate to celebrate their priestly anniversary using the date of their Anglican priesting. This would suggest a recognition of something or the other, if not a recognition of the assurance that RCs would have with their own priests.

Not that I have a horse in this race, but I'm sure the RCs could say to swimming priests, in effect "your ordination was broken so we fixed it". It maybe was so broken it didn't work at all, but there was still something there.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Well, Zach, I generally agree with you, and would be ready to push the logic if B16 were in the room. However, in the history of Anglican/RC relations, these signs--- never meaningless-- have a lot of significance, and are an advance, especially when one considers B16's own theological (over) rigour.

But, if I am asked, I want a lot more. I will mention it the next time I am at lunch with His Holiness.

We've already established that the pope's opinion of Anglican sacraments is of no concern to me. If it was I would be Catholic wouldn't I? My hang up is how Anglicans are taking the sacraments, in being willing to deny their validity (as sacraments, not mere agents of grace) for the sake of ecumenism. So long as we believe they are sacraments, Christ's offer of salvation, we simply cannot deny them, even for the sake of Christian unity. And especially not for the right to wear pointy hats, have anniversary cold-cut trays, or even have a few distinct prayer rites!

Zach

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Zach's concern about effectively denying the sacramentality of one's orders for the sake of ecumenism is the rock on which more than one church union scheme has foundered. I will let those undergoing the process to defend their position, but their readiness to do so is, as I have suggested elsewhere, a symptom of their perceptions of isolation and abandonment. I would agree with Zach that it is not the most theologically coherent position to take.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I find myself wondering what Zach makes of TEC's suspension of the requirements of its Ordinal during the period of years in which the ELCA are acquiring the historic episcopal succession (terms here deliberate -- I don't think "apostolic succession" is a particularly helpful designation for what we do in episcopal ordination). In suspending its Ordinal, TEC has accepted the sacramental ministry of Lutheran clergy not ordained in the historic episcopal succession.

IMO the requirement for re-ordination of Methies has more to do with the peculiar history of the Methodist schism from Anglicanism (for which both the conformist Anglicans and the non-conforming Methodists were culpable) than with issues over sacramental validity per se.

Anglicans have always essentially recognised the ecclesial validity of continental European Lutherans, even where the particular national churches did not have the historic episcopal succession; at least until the advent of a particular strain of Anglo-Catholicism in the C19.

The notion of ontological change is a very dubious one. It is possible to say that a sacrament is indelible and confers "character" without this necessitating that we posit any ontological change (it was BTW the assertion of a former Anglican priest that he was going to be ontologically changed in his ordination in the RCC that I found so objectionable -- even if meant somehow ironically I fail to find it humorous; if he wasn't already a Christian priest/presbyter possessing the character of that office, what the hell had he been doing all these years?).

As to episcopacy and validity, it can be argued that other ecclesial communities that lack/lacked the historic episcopate still retained a legitimately ordered ministry of oversight -- individual in the case of Methodists, whilst corporate in the case of Presbyterians and some of the Lutheran bodies; and that efficacious ministry and sacraments were perpetuated within these structures, notwithstanding the loss of the historic succession of bishops.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
With respect to this tangent, Anglicanorum Coetibus and the accompanying norms permit priests of the Ordinariate to celebrate their priestly anniversary using the date of their Anglican priesting. This would suggest a recognition of something or the other, if not a recognition of the assurance that RCs would have with their own priests.
Not that I have a horse in this race, but I'm sure the RCs could say to swimming priests, in effect "your ordination was broken so we fixed it". It maybe was so broken it didn't work at all, but there was still something there.

FWIW, I think that would be a splendid way of putting it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
but considering the claims we make about the sacraments, that they are Christ's offer of salvation to the world

Are you sure that's correct? Isn't it confusing the secondary with the primary?

Christ's offer of salvation to the world is in his life, crucifixion and resurrection. I would hope that whatever our sacramental theology, the sacraments are the means by which that is mediated to us, the way receive his offer. To whatever degree we may believe that the offering on a Sunday morning remembers, represents, identifies with or re-creates those events here, it takes its significance from the original events. It does not have an independent ontology.

Otherwise one gets into the position, which one sometimes hears implied, but must be the wrong way round, that Christ died and rose again so as to bring us the Mass.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I find myself wondering what Zach makes of TEC's suspension of the requirements of its Ordinal during the period of years in which the ELCA are acquiring the historic episcopal succession (terms here deliberate -- I don't think "apostolic succession" is a particularly helpful designation for what we do in episcopal ordination). In suspending its Ordinal, TEC has accepted the sacramental ministry of Lutheran clergy not ordained in the historic episcopal succession.

I disagree with it, and certainly never would have supported such a move if anyone had asked, though since I never go to Lutheran churches I doubt I have much reason to worry about it.

I am not trying to pretend my views are universal in Anglicanism. I am arguing for my own views, the faith of the catholic Church actually, which are provided for in Anglican doctrine and practice. So long as my views are provided for, I won't begrudge people holding contrary views.

Zach

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Zach, you come across like an old time Branch Theory A-C. I've been there, but I can't buy it anymore. However, my question is rather broader than that. Let's go back to the notion of "fixing" an ordination that was "broken". What I would suggest is that this notion is ok if we are talking in terms of a view that, " your ordination is grossly irregular in terms of our eccesial structure and theory, so we are going to regularise you." OTOH, if that really means, "your ordination was ' utterly void...and invalid' then 'Houston, we have a problem'." If sacraments performed outside the RCC are considered by them to be illicit or irregular, then that's one thing. If they are considered invalid in the sense of "null and void", then that is quite another. If former Anglican priests take the position that their orders were null and void, then that is a blasphemy to the Christian ministry and to what one would think was their original ordinations under Anglican discipline.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If former Anglican priests take the position that their orders were null and void, then that is a blasphemy to the Christian ministry and to what one would think was their original ordinations under Anglican discipline.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit and you might give yourself a chance of hearing what's actually being said.

For one thing, Apostolicae Curae, though infallible, was promulgated 120 years ago. Stuff has happened since then, like the "Dutch Touch" and Orthodox involvements in Anglican ordinations. I am no longer convinced that such happenings make a crucial difference, but even if they don't, we are still looking at a "your orders are so broken they may not work sacramentally" notion rather than a "your whole ministry was a waste of time". We know what we do and have done - we do not always know what God does and has done.

No converting cleric is ever asked to deny the goodness and efficacy of his Anglican ministry before, during or after his ordination as a Catholic priest. Instead, he is called to affirm with the Catholic Church what was good and godly about it.

So cut the "blasphemy" schtick.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

No converting cleric is ever asked to deny the goodness and efficacy of his Anglican ministry before, during or after his ordination as a Catholic priest. Instead, he is called to affirm with the Catholic Church what was good and godly about it.

Why is it so difficult for some people to get this?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Sorry, Chester, but if one were an Anglican priest who believes that his "ordination" as a priest in the RCC is doing more than simply bringing his sacerdotal ministry into communion with the requirements of the papacy - as opposed to effecting some purported ontological change, conferral of some character that was formerly absent, or essential sacramental validity that was absent during his functioning as a priest in the Anglican Communion - that involves a whole train of blasphemous notions in respect to what the Tiber-swimming priest is and what he has formerly been up to as an Anglican. It's not rhetoric. OTOH, if such priest takes the position that he's just conforming to the canonical requirements of the RCC and going through motions in order to have his priesthood confirmed by the RCC, then that's no more than a fudge that lacks intellectual and/or ethical integrity. The problem isn't with the requirements of the RCC per se, but rather with the positions taken by those who are abandoning their orders within churches of the Anglican discipline.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Sorry, Chester, but if one were an Anglican priest who believes that his "ordination" as a priest in the RCC is doing more than simply bringing his sacerdotal ministry into communion with the requirements of the papacy - as opposed to effecting some purported ontological change, conferral of some character that was formerly absent, or essential sacramental validity that was absent during his functioning as a priest in the Anglican Communion - that involves a whole train of blasphemous notions in respect to what the Tiber-swimming priest is and what he has formerly been up to as an Anglican. It's not rhetoric. OTOH, if such priest takes the position that he's just conforming to the canonical requirements of the RCC and going through motions in order to have his priesthood confirmed by the RCC, then that's no more than a fudge that lacks intellectual and/or ethical integrity. The problem isn't with the requirements of the RCC per se, but rather with the positions taken by those who are abandoning their orders within churches of the Anglican discipline.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along, thank you very much. [Biased]

I have a feeling many Catholics would feel exactly the same way if the Orthodox wanted to reordain all Catholic priests in this merger the Pope is decreeing. "We don't need our ministry completed, thank you very much!"

Zach

[ 04. August 2011, 11:16: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :

quote:
Why is it so difficult for some people to get this?

Probably because the weasel word ' ministry' evades the fact that they were already ordained priests in the Church of God and dispensers of his holy Sacraments (The Ordinal), and ought to be accounted, both by themselves and others, to be truly priests (Canon A4).

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I would think the Catholics would also be more troubled that there seems to be a whole boatload of Ordinariate clergy that do NOT see any sacramental lack to their ministries, and therefore see reordination into the Roman Catholic rite as a mere formality.

Zach

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Zach, in the mid-1980s I knew a former Episcopal priest who had been priested in the RCC under the Special Pastoral Provision and was pastoring a very small Anglican Use parish. He was part of the original group in the USA who were admitted under JPII's scheme and he indicated to me that he and the other Anglican priests were told by the RC mentors in charge of bringing their group (the Pro-Diocese of St Augustine) into the RC fold to think of undergoing RC ordination as indeed simply complying with the canonical requirements of the RCC to function as priests. What he indicated was that this fudge was being actively perpetuated by their RC mentors from the get-go.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Well, I don't know what canonical requirements they can mean, but either one believes he or she is ordained to the priesthood of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, or one doesn't. This talk about "completing broken blah blahs" is just weaseling around with "You aren't really a priest."

Zach

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Lietuvos, Zach and Clavus, you all seem to me to be missing something through the mist of your own indignation. Something which is not lost, I suspect, on the part of the Ordinariate clergy themselves.

The pertinent question, for them and for those commentating here, is: is there any reasonable doubt - historical, procedural, ecclesiological, jurisdictional - whether the clergy making the swim were ordained as priests in the fullest sense maintained by the Roman Catholic Church? The answer, I think, has to be yes. There is some such doubt. Many may feel nonetheless that there is not sufficient doubt to reject their previous sacrmental efficacy - but there doesn't have to be. No-one is forcing anyone explicitly to deny even that. That there is some doubt in the other direction is clear by Graham Leonard's conditional ordination to the priesthood. But the doubt is such that it must be resolved and the only way to resolve it in such a way as conclusively to move beyond it is to accept ordination afresh from the Church as you now accept her to be. Actually being a Catholic changes a lot - it just does, believe me.

The other thing missing is that some (many, if my acquaintances are anything to go by) have for a long time begun to think there was an issue about their orders, which they received and exercised as Anglicans in good faith without crossed fingers, which needed resolving - like some kind of "radical sanation" - in the light of their acceptance of the Pope as sumpreme pastor. One can come to see that one's own old certainties are less important in the light of this change. This process of thought is usually gradual, not sudden. It is usually honest and organic and taken in good faith. It also requires humility. Those who undergo it deserve some respect - or at the very least the benefit of the doubt. [Like not imputing "blasphemy". At the very most, accepting ordination when one is already 100% certain one is in orders as the Catholic Church herself understands it might constitute consenting to sacrilege, but even then...]

So what's missing from your accounts, as I see it, is the graciousness to accept that some of your own people develop spiritually in a direction not entirely to your liking. No-one promised you they would not develop their understandings and act honestly according to them. As they leave, they wish you all that is good, and hope you will reciprocate. Your sense of betrayal is an issue for you, not for them.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

I'll say it straight: they are not priests of the Catholic Church.

And I think you'll find most Anglicans are rather pleased with that, because the Reformation intended very deliberately to make sure that no notions of the papistical priesthood were entertained by their adherents. It's only certain Anglicans who have a hang-up about it.

There seem to be no such problems with clergy of other Churches because they don't try to do the splits when describing what their Orders are about. I get on really well with all my ecumenical colleagues without worrying about the validity of Orders because none of them actually thinks they are Catholic priests - and that includes the Anglican. We are all ministers of the Gospel, servants of Jesus Christ and his people. Indeed, one is an ex-RC who rejected the Catholic doctrine and embraced the Reformed tradition. He would hate for me to think of him as a Catholic priest (which he never was, just to be clear. He left as a layman). Do I think all of them are just wasting their time? No, because I do not believe Christ only works through the sacraments, or the Catholic Church.

All this is part of the particular pain of a certain type of Anglican. I sympathise (and I am not just saying that, I mean it), but there also comes a point where one just has to leave you alone to get on with it. No matter what is said or done, it will simply rub into your wound.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

I crossposted with Chesterbelloc, who was more gracious than me.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think the Roman Catholics here are so busy trying to assure us of the graces of the Anglican priesthood that they are missing the fact that this admission is perfectly realized. I, for one, understand fully that the Roman Catholic Church sees the possibility of graces in the Anglican Priesthood.

Yet, as Catholics, you also cannot deny that is not the same thing as admitting our priesthood as fully sacerdotal. It comes down to this.

quote:
I'll say it straight: they are not priests of the Catholic Church.

Period. Full stop. That is what is important.

Now, I am not complaining that the Catholic Church rejects our orders. Once again, if I did I would be Catholic. It's also not at all remarkable that receiving reordination into the Roman Catholic priesthood is perfectly acceptable in Roman Catholic theology. It's all so obvious that I almost feel insulted that it's being explained to me over and over.

I am arguing that the Ordinariate clergy's actions are wrong according to high church Anglican theology, not Roman Catholic Theology. Why on earth I, a high church Anglican, should be imagined to be arguing any theology but high church Anglican theology is beyond me.

Zach

[ 04. August 2011, 13:33: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Well, leave them alone then. They are now Roman Catholics. They have left High Church Anglicanism behind them. They have let go - now you let go of them.

Simples.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Well, leave them alone then. They are now Roman Catholics. They have left High Church Anglicanism behind them. They have let go - now you let go of them.

It isn't clear to me that they have let go. It should bother you as much as it bothers me. Heck, more than it bothers me, insofar as they're your problem now.

Zach

[ 04. August 2011, 14:08: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Ah well, we have ways of dealing with problems which Anglicanism doesn't [Biased]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

In Roman Catholic theology, is it seen as spiritually dangerous to deny the efficacy of Roman Catholic sacraments? I mean in itself, besides breaking communion with the pope.

That is the spiritual danger I see.

Zach

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Part of the indignation here, I think, is that these clergy could have left the Anglican churches years ago and gone over to Rome, where they most likely could have been ordained as RC clergy if they were suitable candidates. The RCC has accepted quite a lot of former Anglican and Lutheran married clergy in the past, even aside from the Special Pastoral Provision in the USA. They didn't have to wait. Some of us don't buy the whole excuse of wanting to preserve an Anglican patrimony, although in the US there are a very few Anglican Use parishes that have managed to do that, via the Book of Divine Worship. It seems that the Ordinariate clergy were waiting around for some special deal, whilst thinking there was something amiss about their position in persisting on being out of full communion with the Holy See. There is a disingenuous aspect, in retrospect, to their Anglican ministries and indeed to the manner in which they decamped to the Roman Communion.

Posted by angelicum (# 13515) on :

I don't see what the issue is. I know 2 ordinariate priests and as far as they (and I) see it, the orders they received at Anglican ordination were valid Anglican orders and insofar as they were practicing within the canons of the Anglican communion, the sacraments and the ministry they exercised were valid for Anglicans.

At Catholic ordination, they are now Catholic orders and dispense valid Catholic sacraments.

Catholics and Anglicans have different doctrines and disciplines with regards to the sacraments as stated in their respective catechisms/articles. So when a Catholic speaks of a valid sacrament, it means something different from the official Anglican position on what a valid sacrament is surely?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Whatever. Disunity is an anomalous situation. The Ordinariate is an anomalous solution to an anomalous situation. The only way to cope with anomalies is compromise, which the Anglicans should have been well used to anyway. Maybe part of the 'Anglican patrimony' that they are bringing is just this: the ability to compromise.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Honestly Lietuvos, the issues are your own and it just does not matter what you "buy" or not.

Establishing the Ordinariates is and has been a complicated and costly business for the Catholic Church. There is no desperation on our part to grab as many scalps as possible. As has been pointed out, not all who have asked to come have been automatically accepted. There has been a fair amount of discernment on the go, going all the way to dossiers having to be submitted to the CDF in Rome for those wanting to be ordained. You know full well that the CDF is not inclined to glossing over problems. So what you are buying or not is really rather sticking your thumb in the air trying to determine the issue, whereas there has been a fairly comprehensive assessment process carried out by the Catholic Church.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

TTT has hit the nail on the head. The RCC is not a particularly welcoming organisation for potential converts. It's not like a presbyterian sticking his or her head round the corner of the local Anglican Church and saying "Hello! I'm joining you now!" Even for laypeople of the Ordinariate there has been a period of discernment and I'm sure not everyone decided to continue. In much the same way that there is a large drop out from the standard RCICA course.

It goes without saying that not everyone who was an Anglican priest will be accepted willy nilly by the RCC for ordination and it is over simplifying things to say X or Y is offended by some criticism of a particular person or Pope.

I have always felt that the RCC tends to discourage anyone who wishes to convert. The Ordinariate maybe a specific mechanism for former Anglicans but it doesn't make becoming a Catholic an easy option despite appearing to be such.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I hope I don't seem like I am doing an about face here, LSK, but I really think that is the least of Anglican worries. We can talk about the gravity of failing to discern the Body, which I really think is an issue to be made here, but considering the crap catholic Anglicans have to put up with these days, from hippy-dippy gurus and self-help gospel priests... I really think the attitude of ordinariate leaning priests is the least of our worries.

Zach

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
The RCC is not a particularly welcoming organisation for potential converts. <snip> Even for laypeople of the Ordinariate there has been a period of discernment and I'm sure not everyone decided to continue. In much the same way that there is a large drop out from the standard RCICA course. <snip> I have always felt that the RCC tends to discourage anyone who wishes to convert.

It seems to me that a period of teaching and discernment lasting months is extremely sensible. After all ideally conversion, like marriage, is a life long committment. 6-9 months (which the web tells me is normal for RICA) or longer if needed, seems to me to be very considerate.

Discernment is a seriously underated process.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

I have a good friend who'd been a lfielong Anglo-Catholic, but finally got fed up of the way the Church of England was moving, so she was received into the Roman Catholic Church at Easter. Although I didn't (and still don't) share her assesment of the CofE, I'm nevertheless pleased that she's now in a church where she's happy and which she can respect, even though she might privately choose to ignore the odd dogma. What intrigued me though was that despite having a good working knowledge of the RCC, she still had to undergo a lengthy period of instruction - one which continued after her reception.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

The Vatican has not always automatically welcomed convert priests, nor should they be expected to do so now. I heard it explained in this RC diocese (I'm sad to say that doesn't mean it is correct) that ordained converts who wish to become RC priests are evaluated and a course of study is prescribed. For some, only a year or two of seminary work may be necessary. For others, it may be several years. A bishop would be crazy not to evaluate the Catholic aptitude of the candidates before ordination or reception. I would certainly expect a RC priest who converted to Lutheranism to have a firm grounding in the doctrine, history, and theology of the church before being received.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I have a good friend who'd been a lfielong Anglo-Catholic, but finally got fed up of the way the Church of England was moving, so she was received into the Roman Catholic Church at Easter. Although I didn't (and still don't) share her assesment of the CofE, I'm nevertheless pleased that she's now in a church where she's happy and which she can respect, even though she might privately choose to ignore the odd dogma. What intrigued me though was that despite having a good working knowledge of the RCC, she still had to undergo a lengthy period of instruction - one which continued after her reception.

Have you seen The Catechism of the Catholic Church? 904 pages. And if we go by the opinions of many of the RCs on the Ship, most (all?) RC beliefs are of vital importance having been passed directly by God to the Magisterium and the Successors of St. Peter. Since an individual does not have the authority for herself to decide what is important dogma, she could easily wander into error.

Oral instruction actually sounds like a shortcut.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

In spite of its length and depth, the Cathechism isn't that diffivult to read, and YouCat is a good cut-down equivalent for adults as well as for its intended youth readership.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

As to the 904 page summary of the doctrine of the Catholic church which we are supposed to memorise before we can be baptised or received into the Church, I read it back in the day two years after my reception. Fascinating stuff and very readable. Can't remember most of it.

I was received in pre-RCIA days, I think. Once a week for two hours over 5 months before the Easter Vigil (and time out over the Christmas vacation and Reading week and when the snow was too deep to move) is hardly onerous for a lifetime commitment. What I remember is the fun (with minimal homework)* we all had learning the stuff we needed to survive as day to day Catholics, because after the hype of the Vigil, that was what was left.

*What I learnt in the class also came in very handy in my senior Religious studies class. I wrote some essays, with bibliographies that were certainly out of the norm of the usual books and articles. So it was hardly wasted time.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

TT, I do hope you understand that my issue here is not to do primarily with the RCC but with the Anglican clergy who signed onto the Ordinariate. I shall not critique the Ordinariate clergy any further, however. Weary of this and I am now on an iPad that does not encourage lengthy posts (Deo gratias you may be thinking).

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Yes, I get that. And I get the fact that there is an element of anger in the midst of grief. I understand that this issue of the Ordinariate is yet another thing which has rent the Anglo-Catholic garment. There has to be an element of repair and holding together for those who have not gone over.

But I don't think that's actually served by impugning those who have left or are leaving. Just as I think it serves no-one to impugn those who did not come to the Catholic Church.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
But I don't think that's actually served by impugning those who have left or are leaving

Yeah let's not talk about. ssshhh.

Feck me.

P

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Is it possible in Pyx_e land to talk about something without impugning someone?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Well that pretty much depends on what they did, doesn’t it? In Pyx_e Land we are not assimilated so we can talk about what we want.

Impugn; To attack as false or questionable.

Can I start by saying Impugn was your choice of words. I do not think they have done anything false. I really do wish them well, I have known many of them for ages and the Roman Catholic church has always been their hearts desire and I am VERY PLEASED that they are home at last. I have prayed for them and supported them financially,

However I am, at present, thinking that some of what they did was questionable. Not least as discussed elsewhere they have had plenty of time to get it right, how could they end up making so many questionable moves? The actual move hardly created a stir on the ship, not least I guess because many of us despite the wrangles were just pleased the birth had finally happened, the Rubicon crossed.

But the CBS affair, over which you have expressed some concern just bought it all up, again. Questionable indeed. And last time I looked that was part of what the Ship was here for, to question.

All the best, Pyx_e

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Ho hum, thanks for the little lecture reminder about what the Ship is for.

And do note that I was responding to LsK when you decided to step in and bluster. It's not all about you.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Lecture? Bluster? Holy Smoke Birettaman Your Acme Catholic Logic Shield is showing signs of strain.

Quick to the Monstrancemobile.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am arguing that the Ordinariate clergy's actions are wrong according to high church Anglican theology, not Roman Catholic Theology. Why on earth I, a high church Anglican, should be imagined to be arguing any theology but high church Anglican theology is beyond me.

Zach

I think the root of the problem is the 'high church Anglican theology' you recognise is not the same as that held by the swimmers.

The reason you think they are disingenuous or intellectually dubious is why you don't swim. That they don't see their position as dubious or disingenuous is why they swam.

Oh, and Fr Tiara

quote:
And I think you'll find most Anglicans are rather pleased with that, because the Reformation intended very deliberately to make sure that no notions of the papistical priesthood were entertained by their adherents.

This is me. I would be most nonplussed if the Pope let people into his clubhouse who didn't know the secret handshake.

And just because we have a handshake of our own, doesn't mean it's the Pope's secret one, no matter that some people would like to fancy it is.

And this Anglican is happy to leave to the bishop of Rome his own secret handshakes.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

It's interesting. The ship shows the opposite of my experiences in real life. Most of my Anglican friends are very keen that we don't let any financial stuff out (the Church of England can't afford to lose any money, to be frank!) and thus if they knew about it would be disgusted by the CBS move, but are mostly happy that these people are gone. 'Good riddance' is a term I've heard used by the less charitable, 'Finally where God has been calling them for years, good for them' is, fortunately, much more common. For most of us, it strikes me that it allows us to move on with where we see God is calling the Church of England without people for whom God is calling other directions. Whether or not the actions of those who have moved is ethically correct is up for question in some cases, sure, but actually, I wonder if a number of their problems within the CofE were primarily caused with rejecting God's calling and trying to do something different. As an MK, the number of times I've seen variants of the Jonah story played out is almost absurd. My dad's first question now when interviewing applicants is 'Do you feel a direct calling to this post or are you just filling a need you perceive?' I personally wonder how many of the clergy in question were just filling a need that they perceived rather than called to remain in the CofE.

However my Catholic friends are mostly disgusted to have a load of what they perceieve to be arch-conservative, anti-women's ordination people joining the CC in the UK as they don't want them! For them it seems like a massive backwards step. Even some (rather senior) clergy (who guest lectured at my university and were quizzed about it rather heavily as my theology class had discussed it rather heatedly) have expressed doubts about people who have caused problems for the Church of England moving on to cause problems for the Catholic Church in England, although they all are quick to say that they are sure that that is not the case and all the people they've met have been lovely, the thought is definitely still there...

[ 05. August 2011, 20:03: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Specifically, the charitable aims of CBS begin by stating:

quote:
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH IN THE ANGLICAN TRADITION
(not cobbled or restated by me, but cut and pasted from the Charities Commission website).

The issue is whether the (Roman Catholic) Ordinariate, which aims to preserve 'Anglican patrimony', is actually in the Anglican tradition or not.

quote:
Originally posted by Woodworm:
Will CBS please disclose the legal advice it received?

Speaking with my lawyer's hat on, I don't see how you can possibly claim that this donation was in accordance the articles of the charity.

The opening sentence of the articles is, "The Confraternity is established for the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition..."

This was a donation to group that has chosen to leave the Anglican tradition and join the Roman Catholic church. The donation is 180 degrees from advancing the catholic faith "in the Anglican Tradition". You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to see that.

You first need to establish as a fact that the Ordinariate is not in the Anglican tradition. I don’t see that either of you have. To claim that the phrase ‘Anglican patrimony’ is “a phrase which until very recently was used to mean (even remotely) communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” (AberVicar) is seriously out of date. What about those anglican movements that are not in communion with Canterbury? You may not believe that they are ‘Anglican’ or that they shouldn’t use the term ‘Anglican,’ but you can hardly expect them to agree with that. The time has long gone since ‘Anglican’ = ‘being in communion with Canterbury.’

It seems to me that the CBS counts the Ordinariate as part of the Anglican tradition, in communion with rome. If they couldn’t give any grant money to people they weren’t in communion with, they couldn’t give any grant money to, say, the TAC either. So a question is warranted: Would you have problems with the CBS giving a grant to someone like, say the TAC or some other Continuing Anglican movement not in communion with Canterbury? If not, why is it a problem to give it to the Ordinariate? I don’t see the principled difference. The CBS didn’t say ‘for the advancement of the Catholic Faith in the Church of England,’ it said ‘for the advancement of the Catholic Faith in the Anglican tradition.’

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
To follow on, it isn't exactly clear to me how the same group of people, no longer in the Anglican Communion, can espouse a tradition using the definition of Anglican.

So you are in fact saying that the TAC shouldn’t (be allowed to) call themselves Anglicans? Because they are not part of the ‘Anglican communion,’ assuming that you are referring to those who are in communion with Canterbury.

quote:
Originally posted by badman:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
By joining the Ordinariate, anglo-catholics are becoming Roman Catholics. Full stop.
Quite.

Hence, they are not entitled to charitable funds donated by and for Anglicans.

Does this also include the TAC?

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I hear what you're saying. However I don't think one should completely discount the possibility that the rules were changed in anticipation of something like the Ordinariate being announced.

Yes, when there is doubt, it is always best to assume the worst. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Anglican means: CofE, in communion with Canterbury, very - barely - possibly one of the derivative bodies in immediate schism from the aforementioned and retaining BCP-inspired worship and non-papistical Order. Full stop.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
To follow on, it isn't exactly clear to me how the same group of people, no longer in the Anglican Communion, can espouse a tradition using the definition of Anglican.
So you are in fact saying that the TAC shouldn’t (be allowed to) call themselves Anglicans? Because they are not part of the ‘Anglican communion,’ assuming that you are referring to those who are in communion with Canterbury.

I am saying exactly what I said - that it isn't clear to me.

Someone will have to make it clear what English law understands as the Anglican tradition. My view (whether or not outdated) is that communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is a touchstone that shows authenticity as an Anglican. Others may think that they are carrying on the Anglican tradition in some other context, TAC being among them. I would then ask exactly how do I distinguish them from groups adhering to episcopi vagantes who call themselves Anglican. (Indeed, one who turns up occasionally in this locality claims to be in communion both with Canterbury and Rome.)

One million smackers is a lot to ride on a floating definition...

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Anglican means: CofE, in communion with Canterbury, very - barely - possibly one of the derivative bodies in immediate schism from the aforementioned and retaining BCP-inspired worship and non-papistical Order. Full stop.

According to whom, exactly? Do you believe that a court would deem the TAC ‘un-anglican’?

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
My view (whether or not outdated) is that communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is a touchstone that shows authenticity as an Anglican.

But your (or my) view is not the point here. I highly doubt that a court would say that the TAC is ‘un-anglican.’ But they are not in communion with Canterbury. It seems therefore wrong to assume, in legal matters, that the CBS cannot give money to the Ordinariate, since they are to grant money ‘for the advancement of the Catholic Faith in the Anglican tradition.’ It seems to me that the CBS is entitled to say that the Ordinariate is ‘in the Anglican tradition’; anglicans in communion with Rome, but not with Canterbury. Remember that those in CBS who are in the CofE are not in formal communion with the TAC either. This would of course be different if the CBS were formally a part of the CofE. But I see no indication of that.

I don’t see any illegality here, and it is quite interesting to see people here assuming that it is illegal. In civilized countries one is presumed innocent, not guilty.

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I would then ask exactly how do I distinguish them from groups adhering to episcopi vagantes who call themselves Anglican. (Indeed, one who turns up occasionally in this locality claims to be in communion both with Canterbury and Rome.)

This question is equally important in facing all who use the term ‘Catholic.’ One can easily distinguish them by asking with whom they are in formal communion. One doesn’t need to postulate a ‘problem’ where there is none.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Four different but related things on this:-

1. As far as the UK is concerned, I for one would normally understand Anglican to mean the CofE which is established by law, the CinW and CofI which used to be established by law or another church in communion with them such as the Scottish Piskies. I think most people would have the same understanding.

2. So schismatic people who call themselves Anglican would not appear to be within that meaning. The only point where the contrary ought to arise would be where there are two overlapping groups which are both in communion with Canterbury.

3. Even if something like the TAC or the Free Church of England (a very small group that split in a Protestant direction about 150 years ago) were held to be within the definition of 'Anglican', history since 1558 is such that it would strike me as very odd indeed that anyone could even try to argue that a group that was part of the Roman church could claim to be Anglican.

4. This isn't a case of being presumed innocent until proved guilty. We're talking about civil law here, not criminal. The money may have been misapplied and have to be repaid without anyones having committed a crime.

5. A prudent board of trustees who proposed to do this, would have at least consulted the Charity Commission first and not made the payment unless the Commission had cleared it - or at least said, 'it's at your own risk'. Taking legal advice without involving the Commission as well and showing them the advice would be risky. I can't speak for this. I do not know. But it doesn't sound as though this happened. That to me, carries the suspicion that somebody might have thought, 'we'd better not ask as the answer's likely to be no'.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I highly doubt that a court would say that the TAC is ‘un-anglican.’

The question is whether a court would consider it to be 'in the Anglican tradition', and more specifically whether an English court would do so. Given that it is a splinter group, and defines itself over against the group that was previously denoted as Anglican, there seems to be a prima facie case in law for saying that it is not 'in the Anglican tradition', despite its claims that it is preserving the real thing.

The same applies even more strongly to the CBS matter.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I think your argument also demonstrates why the CofE cannot also be called "catholic". Which probably answers Adeodatus's thread on whether AC-ism is a failure.

(Actually I don't - It might have been more accurate to say I don't think your argument would stand up in court. But I just thought the parallel between the threads was too close for comfort at that point).

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I highly doubt that a court would say that the TAC is ‘un-anglican.’
The question is whether a court would consider it to be 'in the Anglican tradition', and more specifically whether an English court would do so. Given that it is a splinter group, and defines itself over against the group that was previously denoted as Anglican, there seems to be a prima facie case in law for saying that it is not 'in the Anglican tradition', despite its claims that it is preserving the real thing.

I disagree. Consider, for example, the lutheran churches. Would you say that the LCMS wouldn't be counted as 'lutheran' because they broke off from ELCA? If yes, I think you would be the only one.

I highly doubt that any court would say that the TAC is not 'in the Anglican tradition' or that the LCMS is not 'in the lutheran tradition.'

[ 13. August 2011, 21:44: Message edited by: k-mann ]

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I highly doubt that any court would say that the TAC is not 'in the Anglican tradition' or that the LCMS is not 'in the lutheran tradition.'

Chalk and cheese. Unless I am very mistaken, the most accessible definition of Lutheran is confessional; the most accessible definition of Anglican is by being in communion with Canterbury.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think your argument also demonstrates why the CofE cannot also be called "catholic". Which probably answers Adeodatus's thread on whether AC-ism is a failure.

(Actually I don't - It might have been more accurate to say I don't think your argument would stand up in court. But I just thought the parallel between the threads was too close for comfort at that point).

There is a serious point here, which is that the Ordinariate is one symptom of a general realignment of Western Christianity. Anglicans are struggling to establish exactly where their identity lies along a spectrum that leads some to Rome and its recent doctrinal retrenchment, and others (Dave Marshall is the most obvious one I have seen on the Ship) to seek forms which might not be recognisable as Christian at all.

The sooner Anglicans can learn to rejoice in that diversity and to be a home for the fruitful dialogue that comes from it, the sooner the Church will be able to grow as the Body of Christ (IM not very HO of course).

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

There is much in what you say, AberVicar, I'm sure. There is some sort of realignment involved, and some sort of crisis of identity within Anglicanism in general.

But the bit that keeps nagging at me concerns your last paragraph -

quote:
The sooner Anglicans can learn to rejoice in that diversity and to be a home for the fruitful dialogue that comes from it, the sooner the Church will be able to grow as the Body of Christ (IM not very HO of course).

No disagreement there at all. We do have our share of "my way or else" people in every kind of church. Rather, what concerns me centres around what is meant by diversity. There has to be some thing or concept which can be said to be diverse. A jumble of views and attitudes is not diversity. It will simply lead overall to the ecclesial equivalent of white noise. Indeed I will be bolder and say that if we cannot articulate what the diversity is about, we probably don't have diversity at all.

I'm not suggesting that would be anarchism, but I suspect that like in many scenarios where anarchy has been tried, it would be the loudest voices who would win out.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I highly doubt that any court would say that the TAC is not 'in the Anglican tradition' or that the LCMS is not 'in the lutheran tradition.'
Chalk and cheese. Unless I am very mistaken, the most accessible definition of Lutheran is confessional; the most accessible definition of Anglican is by being in communion with Canterbury.

Obviously not everyone agrees with you on this, including the CBS. And I doubt that you would get a court to ‘decide’ who is ‘properly Anglican.’ The fact that the TAC has been allowed to register as an Anglican church should indicate that your argument would not hold up in court. If your definition of ‘Anglican’ is true, why was the TAC allowed to register as one?

It seems to me, then, that what CBS did, even if someone could disagree with the decision, was probably completely legal, and within their mandate, ie. giving support to various organizations or whatnot ‘for the advancement of the Catholic Faith in the Anglican tradition.’ I’m not saying that it was ‘the right thing,’ just that I doubt that you would get a court to agree with you. The founding and registration of TAC seems to be evidence of the contrary.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I highly doubt that a court would say that the TAC is ‘un-anglican.’
The question is whether a court would consider it to be 'in the Anglican tradition', and more specifically whether an English court would do so. Given that it is a splinter group, and defines itself over against the group that was previously denoted as Anglican, there seems to be a prima facie case in law for saying that it is not 'in the Anglican tradition', despite its claims that it is preserving the real thing.
I disagree. Consider, for example, the lutheran churches. Would you say that the LCMS wouldn't be counted as 'lutheran' because they broke off from ELCA? If yes, I think you would be the only one.

I highly doubt that any court would say that the TAC is not 'in the Anglican tradition' or that the LCMS is not 'in the lutheran tradition.'

To avoid any factual misunderstanding on a tangential point, The LC-MS predates the formation of the ELCA by many years, so the above is an analogy without any factual historical basis. The LC-MS and the ELCA represent two parallel and generally non-intersecting streams of Lutheranism in America. The only intersection in the numerous mergers that eventually led to the ELCA was a progressive split from the LC-MS that called themselves the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC), a smallish Midwestern group that merged together with the much larger ALC and LCA to form the ELCA. It's the LC-MS who tend to reject the legitimacy of other expressions of Lutheranism in America.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I highly doubt that any court would say that the TAC is not 'in the Anglican tradition' or that the LCMS is not 'in the lutheran tradition.'
To avoid any factual misunderstanding on a tangential point, The LC-MS predates the formation of the ELCA by many years, so the above is an analogy without any factual historical basis. The LC-MS and the ELCA represent two parallel and generally non-intersecting streams of Lutheranism in America. The only intersection in the numerous mergers that eventually led to the ELCA was a progressive split from the LC-MS that called themselves the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC), a smallish Midwestern group that merged together with the much larger ALC and LCA to form the ELCA. It's the LC-MS who tend to reject the legitimacy of other expressions of Lutheranism in America.

Ok, my bad. But that proves my point. Would you claim that the ELCA was 'not properly lutheran'? Do you believe a court would say so?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

If a group of Ordinariate members were seeking a grant to fund the development of Choral Evensong within the RCC, they could no doubt convincingly claim to be supporting the Anglican tradition even though they were not in communion with Canterbury. But to claim that an Anglican organisation should give money to a group of Roman Catholics to advance practices that are undeniably within the Roman Catholic and not Anglican tradition, with the same argument, seems perverse.
(I have no problem with Benediction and such-like devotions, BTW, whether practised by Roman Catholics, Affirming Catholics or whoever. But they can hardly be what the Pope had in mind when encouraging the preservation of 'Anglican patrimony')

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

There have been six long pages of opinions in this thread, but rather a shortage of facts. I think a chronological account may help.

1862: The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament was founded at All Saints Margaret Street, London by Canon TT Carter for Anglican clergy and laity: (http://www.confraternity.org.uk/history.htm)

“The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament (CBS) (the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ) is a devotional society in the Anglican Communion dedicated to venerating the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is the oldest Anglican devotional society and was founded in 1862 by Thomas Thellusson Carter during the Catholic Revival in the Church of England and has worked to promote the Mass as the weekly main service, regular confession, and the Eucharistic fast.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_of_the_Blessed_Sacrament)

For most of its existence Law I of the Constitution provided that “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 Anglo Catholic Church”;
and under Law II an applicant for membership had to declare “I, being a (Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Communicant Member of, or in Communion with, the Anglo Catholic Church), do request to be admitted an Associate of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, and do hereby concur in its Objects, Rules, Recommendations and Laws” (http://anglicanhistory.org/cbs/manual.html)

On 7 May 2009 the Council-General of the CBS approved amendments to the Constitution to allow the Council-General to add to the list of churches from which the Confraternity can draw its members.

On 4 November 2009 the Pope issued the Apostolical Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, providing for personal ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. This a lengthy and detailed document which must have been under consideration for some considerable time before it was issued. Article I§5 requires members of the Ordinariate to profess the Catholic Faith as set out in the 904 pages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para.870 of which, of course, denies that the Church of England is a part of the true church at all). Article III provides that “the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See.” It is not known to what extent members of the CBS, such as the five Trustees who have since joined the Ordinariate, were consulted; but it is reasonable to assume that it did not come as a surprise to Keith Newton, then the Anglican Bishop of Richborough, who was shortly afterwards appointed the Ordinary by the Pope.

On 19 April 2010 the Council-General of the CBS resolved to add the Ordinariate to the list of churches from which the CBS could draw its members.

In December 2010 Keith Newton approached the Superior-General of the CBS, Christopher Pearson (then an Anglican priest), “asking whether it was within the remit of the Confraternity to make a financial grant to the proposed Ordinariate”.

The Ordinariate was formally established on 15 January 2011. Five of the six Trustees of the CBS joined it and applied to become Roman Catholic priests.

On 10 February 2011 the Trustees unanimously agreed to donate £1 million out of the funds of the CBS to the Ordinariate. Christopher Pearson said that they agreed that “the Objects of the Ordinariate were compatible with the charitable objects of the Confraternity, and specifically the advancement of the Catholic faith in the Anglican tradition”. The objects of the Ordinariate are set out on the Charity Commission’s register. They do not contain any reference whatever to the Anglican tradition. The Trustees also agreed at that meeting, in view of the possibility of such a grant being challenged, to seek additional legal advice.

On 19 May 2011, without having consulted the Council-General, let alone the membership of the CBS, the Trustees agreed to give effect to the decision to make the grant.

On 27 May 2011 the £1 million grant was paid over to the Ordinariate.

On 30 June 2011 the Council-General at its annual meeting, presented with a fait accompli, approved the decision.

The foregoing facts may be found in the Church Times of 8 July 2011 and the Questions and Answers issued by the CBS on 19 July 2011, which can be found at http://www.confraternity.org.uk/documents/CBS-QandA.pdf.

It has, of course, always been possible, at least since the time of Newman and Manning, for individual members of the Church of England to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. Priests who transfer their allegiance are however unlikely to bring with them much to support themselves or their families. I may be accused of having an over-suspicious mind; but the chronology of the events of the last two years suggests that the Trustees of the CBS, and other leading Anglo-Catholics wishing to transfer to the Roman Catholic Church and be ordained as RC priests, were conscious that the Roman Catholic Church was not likely to welcome them as priests without any means of support, and therefore looked round for a fund which they could take with them for their own support.

The basis on which they felt able to take with them more than half the assets of the CBS was the advice which they apparently received from counsel that the CBS is not a Church of England Charity, because “It is not part of a Church of England structure and it has its own independent hierarchy.” With all respect to counsel, this is plainly nonsense. On this basis one might conclude that neither Opus Dei nor the Society of Jesus is a Roman Catholic society. Quite apart from this, it is extremely doubtful whether, as a matter of law, funds which have been contributed during 148 years by members of the Church of England for purposes of the Church of England can lawfully be diverted to a purpose which is not for the benefit of the Church of England. The object of the CBS was to be a society for those Anglo-Catholics who deliberately decided to remain in the Church of England and not “go over” to Rome, as many of their colleagues did in the late 19th century. The position of Forward in Faith is similar. The CBS expressly accepts the principles of Forward in Faith’s Agreed Statement on Communion, which itself states that “The Statement has been 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.”

If those CBS Trustees who decided to donate £1 million of the funds which they held on trust to purposes foreign to those intended by the vast majority of the donors (the names of the Trustees can be found on the Charity Commission’s register) wish to retain any respect for their integrity, their only proper course is forthwith to retire from the trusteeship of this Anglican society and return the money taken from the funds of the CBS to new trustees who remain loyal to the Church of England.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I find it very difficult, Egg, to see how anyone can disagree with what you have just said.

My only dissent is with your slight air of caution in your sentence.

quote:
Quite apart from this, it is extremely doubtful whether, as a matter of law, funds which have been contributed during 148 years by members of the Church of England for purposes of the Church of England can lawfully be diverted to a purpose which is not for the benefit of the Church of England.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

egg, there seems to me to be a very evident lacuna in the middle of your argument above.

If the CBS is so clearly a creature of and exclusively for the Church of England, why did Law 1 (ab ovo, as it were) so curiously read, as you quote above:

quote:
“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 Anglo Catholic Church”

?

What ever on earth the "Anglo Catholic Church" is or was, it cannot have been coterminous in the minds of the framers of that law with the Church of England, or wouldn't they just have said so? A deeply ambivalent attitude to the established Church of England rather seems obvious in a set of society rules thus worded exclusively by Church of England clerics.

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :

I am interested by the argument that Fr Seán Finnegan makes here. Apparently the Ordinariate parishes are Anglican in the sense that they're a fit recipient of the C.B.S. donation, but not Anglican in the sense that Anglicans can receive Holy Communion in them. I wonder the Charity Commission will make of such lines of reasoning?

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :

quote:
Originally posted by egg:
On 4 November 2009 the Pope issued the Apostolical Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, providing for personal ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. This a lengthy and detailed document which must have been under consideration for some considerable time before it was issued. Article I§5 requires members of the Ordinariate to profess the Catholic Faith as set out in the 904 pages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para.870 of which, of course, denies that the Church of England is a part of the true church at all).

Many thanks for finding the facts for us.

The bit I have snipped above seems to me to be particularly lethal to any argument that the Ordinariate is part of "the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition" referred to in the definition of the charitable objects of the CBS.

Para 870 of the Catechism states (quoting Lumen Gentium):

quote:
"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 successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."

As you say, this excludes the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of the Church of England, none of whom are in communion with the Pope.

How can the Ordinariate, which is compelled to accept this proposition, be part of "the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition", when it rejects the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops, clergy and laity of the Church of England as true members of the Church of Christ professed in the Creed?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Badman,

I think one of the problems is that there are really two issues here. One being "should they have done it?", the other being "is it legal?". The latter would ultimately be for the courts to determine, and I seriously doubt they will have any interest in matters of ecclesiology, who is in communion with who, or indeed whether that has any meaning at all in this case.

I still think the answer to the first question is "no". But it's still unclear to me what the answer to the second question might be.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by egg:
On 4 November 2009 the Pope issued the Apostolical Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, providing for personal ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. This a lengthy and detailed document which must have been under consideration for some considerable time before it was issued. Article I§5 requires members of the Ordinariate to profess the Catholic Faith as set out in the 904 pages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para.870 of which, of course, denies that the Church of England is a part of the true church at all). Article III provides that “the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See.” It is not known to what extent members of the CBS, such as the five Trustees who have since joined the Ordinariate, were consulted; but it is reasonable to assume that it did not come as a surprise to Keith Newton, then the Anglican Bishop of Richborough, who was shortly afterwards appointed the Ordinary by the Pope.

Seeing as the evidence suggests that neither ++Canterbury nor ++Westminster were consulted, I would be surprised if +Richborough was.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by egg:
On 4 November 2009 *snip* See.” It is not known to what extent members of the CBS, such as the five Trustees who have since joined the Ordinariate, were consulted; but it is reasonable to assume that it did not come as a surprise to Keith Newton, then the Anglican Bishop of Richborough, who was shortly afterwards appointed the Ordinary by the Pope.
Seeing as the evidence suggests that neither ++Canterbury nor ++Westminster were consulted, I would be surprised if +Richborough was.

Well, consulted and informed are different words.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

I am absolutely certain that it came as much as a surprise to Keith Newton (who was only appointed Ordinary some 15 months later) as it did to the rest of us. We might have dreamed of something like it, but were still 'gobsmacked' when it happened.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
I am absolutely certain that it came as much as a surprise to Keith Newton (who was only appointed Ordinary some 15 months later) as it did to the rest of us. We might have dreamed of something like it, but were still 'gobsmacked' when it happened.

I think that the idea that "leading figures" like Newton were all completely in the dark about what the Pope was going to propose is laughable.

It is a matter of open knowledge that many of them had been having "consultations" with senior Catholic officials for some time. It seems utterly unbelievable that in all those meetings, nothing was ever said about what might be done to assist the movement of priests and laity across the Tiber.

Keith Newton may not have known exactly what would be on offer. But it is highly reasonable to suppose that he knew that the Pope would make some kind of move and that such a move would be based on the discussions that had already taken place and so would be amenable to them. Equally, it is highly reasonable to suppose that Keith Newton et al knew that whatever was going to be offered would not come with financial support and so that they would have to find ways of getting the funding they needed.

It doesn't take too much of a leap to the conclusion that, knowing an offer was going to be on the table and that money would be a sticking point, Newton et al started to look around for ways to fix this problem. The CBS funds (of which they had intimate knowledge) must have seemed perfect.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

The only way to resolve the quasi-legal position would be for someone to ring up the charity commission and ask what they think. Has anyone on the thread asked them for an opinion ?

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
The only way to resolve the quasi-legal position would be for someone to ring up the charity commission and ask what they think. Has anyone on the thread asked them for an opinion ?

They have already opened an investigation and requested further information from the Trustees. I imagine they will report in due course.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
I am absolutely certain that it came as much as a surprise to Keith Newton (who was only appointed Ordinary some 15 months later) as it did to the rest of us. We might have dreamed of something like it, but were still 'gobsmacked' when it happened.
I think that the idea that "leading figures" like Newton were all completely in the dark about what the Pope was going to propose is laughable.

It is a matter of open knowledge that many of them had been having "consultations" with senior Catholic officials for some time. It seems utterly unbelievable that in all those meetings, nothing was ever said about what might be done to assist the movement of priests and laity across the Tiber.

Keith Newton may not have known exactly what would be on offer. But it is highly reasonable to suppose that he knew that the Pope would make some kind of move and that such a move would be based on the discussions that had already taken place and so would be amenable to them. Equally, it is highly reasonable to suppose that Keith Newton et al knew that whatever was going to be offered would not come with financial support and so that they would have to find ways of getting the funding they needed.

It doesn't take too much of a leap to the conclusion that, knowing an offer was going to be on the table and that money would be a sticking point, Newton et al started to look around for ways to fix this problem. The CBS funds (of which they had intimate knowledge) must have seemed perfect.

Mgr Burnham was extremely open about what was known and what was unknown in an interview with the Catholic Herald back in January.

http://bit.ly/gZtrq4

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

It is unfortunate he comes across so badly in that article. It really doesn't give confidence.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

I'm genuinely puzzled by that comment, Think*. I've just re-read the interview (having last read it in January) and, my obvious prejudice aside (former FiFanglo-catholic convert to Popery), thought he came across as warm, good-humoured, honest, proportionate and intelligent. I'd be surprised if I were alone in that assessment.

[ 24. August 2011, 14:38: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

[Caveat - I am neither Anglican nor Roman Catholic myself, but my father is very involved as a lay person in the CofE and I think would be considered an anglo-catholic. In that he is very clear about saying that the CofE is a Catholic church, though as it happens they have a female priest and he is not bothered by that. The CofE is very important to him, and probably for that reason - I do care about what happens to it. Consequently I follow some of the debates about what goes on in and around it.]

I read the article really expecting to end up more sympathetic to his position. But - bearing in mind I have never met the man so don't have an image of tone of voice, how he usually talks etc etc - actually it made me quite angry.

What I get from it is:

His needs come first and/or he doesn't take his perceived vocation very seriously - eg I'm called to be a priest, but I will get the state to pay me to do a music degree first even though I am sure I am going to be a priest.
quote:
By that stage I was looking to become a Catholic but it wasn’t clear how that would work out with a wife and two small children.
To which my response would be start working as a teacher again and convert. It is from this point it seems to me to be duplicitious, to go on and persue a career in a church you believe to be at best misguided.
quote:
I felt that I couldn’t really carry on being the local line manager for the C of E but there was a job at St Stephen’s House teaching liturgy and mission and being vice principal and I took that up in January 1995
But he takes a job training clergy for a church he believes at best misguided
quote:
I always said that my stint as vice-principal was the Lord making me do a proper ordination training before allowing me to be a bishop.
A bishop in the CofE who already felt the theologically the Roman Catholic church had the deposit of faith. This seems wrong.
quote:
Of course my dream would have been that when I said: “We’re going to submit to the Holy See.” Everyone would have followed me and done so that the priests, the churches and congregations would do so en bloc, which they haven’t.
So his actual aim - on becoming bishop, was to lead his flock to another church. Not, say, to preserve the catholic integrity with the CofE - or to hope to reverse specific decisions with which he disagreed.
quote:
Except that at the end we couldn’t all move forward together, which is the sadness. Partly it was because some priests are too afraid of doing it. Partly it was because of the issue of buildings. Partly it was because for congregations, provided they’ve got that nice Bishop so-and-so and that nice Father so-and-so the ecclesiology is neither here nor there
This seems to me patronising and dismissive of the layity - who are after all the greater part of the body of the church.
quote:
There was a nasty leak in the Guardian, and that revealed the fact that we remained in touch with Rome during the process.
Nasty in what sense, apparently it was true ?
quote:
we weren’t responsible for the writing of Anglicanorum coetibus, we weren’t consulted on the contents of the document, and we didn’t know what it said until just before it was published, 18 months later.
Why should I believe this ? When he spent the first half of the interview telling how he effectively lied about his faith for 15 years. Could we expect a similar interview in 10 years time saying - "well there was this nasty suggestion that we knew more about what Rome was doing than we admitted - well obviously, informally we did - (not actually shown drafts or anything) - but at the time of transision things were just too delicate to really discuss that. So I just stuck to the line that we'd not been involved in the drafting nor had any formal communications from the Holy See - not frightening the horses you see."
Pretending to be humble whilst fleshing out a comparison to Newman is just not pleasant.

Its a rather detailed exposition, but if I'd said he comes across as self-centered, arrogant and lacking in personal integrity - then I would need to support that in subsequent posts anyway.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Think, your mileage clearly varies! Still, since you've gone to the effort of outlining your perceptions, I've cut-pasted and numbered them below, and will answer them in turn. Others may have to glance above for the context.

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

1. His needs come first and/or he doesn't take his perceived vocation very seriously - eg I'm called to be a priest, but I will get the state to pay me to do a music degree first even though I am sure I am going to be a priest.

2. To which my response would be start working as a teacher again and convert.

3. But he takes a job training clergy for a church he believes at best misguided. [...] A bishop in the CofE who already felt the theologically the Roman Catholic church had the deposit of faith. This seems wrong.

4. So his actual aim - on becoming bishop, was to lead his flock to another church.

5. This seems to me patronising and dismissive of the layity - who are after all the greater part of the body of the church.

6. Why should I believe this ?

7. Pretending to be humble whilst fleshing out a comparison to Newman is just not pleasant.

1. I can't see anything wrong with this, and certainly it wouldn't have seemed wrong to anyone at the time. Plenty people are encouraged to pursue their talents and education before entering training for ministry. A musically trained priest can be a very useful bod to have around. And doing a first degree (or even two) was standard practice for all sorts of professionals before embarking on their vocations. Self-interest can be in the interests of the common good too, you know.

2. It's quite clear he was still trying to get a sense of precisely what God wanted him to do. It is (or was) completely standard operating procedure for Anglo-Cath lerics to wonder whether they ought to pope. Plenty decided they must, but didn't jump immediately into it - and then stayed for good! Discerning this kind of thing, especially when you're so enmeshed in the church as Burnham was, can be bloody difficult. Also, a basic sense of responsibility to the church of his birth, clerical undertakings and to his own family make not trusting immediately to one's own instinct seem a virtue in these circumstances.

3. Heaps like him and always have been. It's called Anglo-Papalism. If you see full communion with the Roman See as the ultimate ecumenical goal for the CofE, you might want to work for that from within. As many want to work from within to get full Methodist-Anglican unity and think we should drop the tactile apostolic succession thing to acheieve it. Should they also get out and not try to persuade anyone to work for their vision?

4. Yes, as a flock. Something like a small-scale corporate re-union - but as big-scale as possible. Blimey, there'd've been far fewer Anglo-Catholic priests ministering in the CofE in the last dozen decades or so if you excluded them on the grounds of desiring some form of corporate re-union with Rome.

5. But it's true. Most of the folk in the pew I knew as an A-C saw the local situation as more important to them pastorally than the bigger ecclesiological picture. That's pretty normal, actually. I didn't hear him castigating them.

6. Because it's true? All the reports we've had from insiders, Anglican and Catholic, have said the same thing. Don't you think it would be a bit odd of Burnham to lie about this in the face of the very people who know the truth, including the Catholic bishops, his Ordinariate colleagues and the Pope himself? That would just be weird. To what end? To make himself look less schemeing than his enemies will think of him anyway? Unless you think he's actually a rogue of pretty poor moral character, that just doesn't make much sense.

7. Pretending to be humble? Where? And how could you possibly know how sincere he was being anyway?

I think your reading is based on a hermeneutic of suspicion, just as I am probably predisposed to read the same comments in the best light. But looking back, do you really think some of your comments are fair? I admit that mine might be more rosy than strictly warranted.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Think, your mileage clearly varies! Still, since you've gone to the effort of outlining your perceptions, I've cut-pasted and numbered them below, and will answer them in turn.

1 - I think I'd chalk the university thing up to a cultural misunderstanding then.

2 - I don't think "by that stage I was looking to become a Catholic" is really ambigious. That is not: I was unsure about where I stood about my theology, or :I was starting to question my place in the anglican traditions.

3.

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you see full communion with the Roman See as the ultimate ecumenical goal for the CofE

A number of responses to this, firstly deliberately turning the See of Ebbsfleet into an easily removable module is not the same thing as seeking a union of the two churches and a healing of the schism. Secondly, you don't have to persue that goal as a cleric - which by its nature makes specific claims about your relationship to the church you're working in. It comes back to that basic theological point - if you genuinely do not believe that you are doing what you say you are doing (and believe you should be doing), you shouldn't be doing it. If the apostolic succession is so important - then what you are doing prior to conversion is not priesthood and that bread and wine is not the living God. But you are preaching and teaching that it is. I would argue the same of priests who are confirmed atheists. I am a health professional, if I stop believing in the efficacy of the treatment I provide - then I will go and retrain and do something else. It would be tough, and would take a period of realisation - but once I came to such a realisation I would give in my notice and go. This guy is dating his realisation back to 15 years before he left.

There is an asymetry in the theological postion, a memoralist non-tactile position means that the apostolic succession can not be broken in any decisive way. You might and up with someone who seems a bit unsuited to his role, but the bread was always bread, the wine always wine, so nothing didn't happen as a result of this. Likewise in ordination ceremonial.

4. I don't think the ordinariate is a reunion, ymmv, I think it is a conversion mechanism. The two churches are not closer or intertwined as a result of it.

5. - It is the phrasing, along with 'they run their little groups'. It feels like for him its all about the clerics. Don't know why it gets up my nose quite so much, I suppose because I know others like my father who haven't done this for well thought through reasons. And at the same time he talks as if the laity are, I don't know, an appendage ?

6. - We may just have to differ on our levels of scepticism about this.Why should I believe this ?

7. I take that last back, I had a bad reaction to the level of tweeness - it is most likely an issue of style.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Failed to delete "why should I believe this" at the end of point six.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Mgr Burnham was extremely open about what was known and what was unknown in an interview with the Catholic Herald back in January.

http://bit.ly/gZtrq4

Even if you take what he said at 100% face value, it leaves an awful lot unsaid:

quote:
Chatted with Cardinal Kasper and Bishop Brennan and the Mgr Donald Bolen, who at that time manned the Anglican desk. The next day we went to see Cardinal Levada at the grand palazzo of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We were ushered into a boardroom and then in came the cardinal with his staff: half a dozen of them. We sat around and chatted about things and they told us: “We will be helpful.” And lo! it came to pass

"Chatted about things"? When you consider the cast list of the people in that conversation, you have to ask just what was discussed.

quote:
In fact, we weren’t responsible for the writing of Anglicanorum coetibus

No-one is saying that they were. Typical piece of politican's misdirection.

quote:
we weren’t consulted on the contents of the document

But that DOESN'T exclude the possibility that they were a party to detailed discussions about what might eventually end up in the document.

quote:
and we didn’t know what it said until just before it was published, 18 months later.

Again - a potentially misleading statement. They may not have known what it said - nor did they need to know. But they DID know, having "chatted about things", that something would be offered and they will have known a good deal about the broad generalities of what would probably be in the document.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

All well and good. But how does this advance our understanding concerning the CBS funds transfer?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Nothing is going to advance that until the Charities Commission make a ruling.

My personal guess is that the CC won't intervene, as there is enough grey area (legally) to justify inaction. I can't see the CC demanding the money be repaid unless there is clear and indisputable evidence of wrongdoing.

But such a decision would not mean that the transfer is morally acceptable. It's not and (as things stand) never will be.

What should have happened is that the trustees on their way to the Ordinariate should have resigned BEFORE the decision was made. Or - at the very least - they should have stood to one side and acknowledged that they had a vested interest and so asked other people to make the decision on the transfer.

Then, as the transfer was so large, the proposal should have been put before the members of the CBS for their agreement.

If that had happened and the members had approved the transfer, then there can have been no serious complaints. As things stand, those involved just look like sleezy slimeballs.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Re; Honest Ron:

The implication is that the Leaders of the Ordinariate knew about the (rough) content and timing of the Pope's offer at least 18 months before hand. Therefore they and those who had been supporters of their cause for many years began to move pieces on the board to fit a known future reality. Insider trading if you will.

So this:

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 the same as saying "I would of course never abuse my position as an Anglican Bishop by recruiting for another denomination." It says if asked he would talk about it. All you have to do then is put a group of clergy (who you know because you are their bishop) in a room for lunch and wait for the question and hey presto, your ass is covered.

As is clear from the above "fact file" the leadership of the CBS were in on the game well beforehand.

All the best, Pyx_e.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Re; Honest Ron:

The implication is that the Leaders of the Ordinariate knew about the (rough) content and timing of the Pope's offer at least 18 months before hand. Therefore they and those who had been supporters of their cause for many years began to move pieces on the board to fit a known future reality. Insider trading if you will.

So this:
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 the same as saying "I would of course never abuse my position as an Anglican Bishop by recruiting for another denomination." It says if asked he would talk about it. All you have to do then is put a group of clergy (who you know because you are their bishop) in a room for lunch and wait for the question and hey presto, your ass is covered.

As is clear from the above "fact file" the leadership of the CBS were in on the game well beforehand.

All the best, Pyx_e.

I think you've got the timescale mixed up here.

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.

I know from personal experience (and that of friends) that this was primarily happening in Autumn 2010.

The CBS membership rules changed before the announcement of an Ordinariate, which was an absolute bombshell to lay and ordained Anglo Catholics (with the potential exception of a TINY handful of people). There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the CBS Trustees were part of that tiny number, or that they had any foreknowledge whatsoever of the concept or contents of Anglicanorum Coetibus.

It's a remarkable leap of reasoning to suggest that the contrary is clear from any of the above posts.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Even if you take what he said at 100% face value, it leaves an awful lot unsaid:

quote:
Chatted with Cardinal Kasper and Bishop Brennan and the Mgr Donald Bolen, who at that time manned the Anglican desk. The next day we went to see Cardinal Levada at the grand palazzo of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We were ushered into a boardroom and then in came the cardinal with his staff: half a dozen of them. We sat around and chatted about things and they told us: “We will be helpful.” And lo! it came to pass
"Chatted about things"? When you consider the cast list of the people in that conversation, you have to ask just what was discussed.

Now I'm really speculating, but I'd wager a significant sum that conversation got them nowhere whatsoever. Hence the CDF coming in "over the heads" of the professional ecumenists (a source of much debate in the immediate aftermath of the publication of Anglicanorum Coetibus).

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Even if you take what he said at 100% face value, it leaves an awful lot unsaid:

quote:
Chatted with Cardinal Kasper and Bishop Brennan and the Mgr Donald Bolen, who at that time manned the Anglican desk. The next day we went to see Cardinal Levada at the grand palazzo of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We were ushered into a boardroom and then in came the cardinal with his staff: half a dozen of them. We sat around and chatted about things and they told us: “We will be helpful.” And lo! it came to pass
"Chatted about things"? When you consider the cast list of the people in that conversation, you have to ask just what was discussed.
Now I'm really speculating, but I'd wager a significant sum that conversation got them nowhere whatsoever. Hence the CDF coming in "over the heads" of the professional ecumenists (a source of much debate in the immediate aftermath of the publication of Anglicanorum Coetibus).

Sorry - misread! Above comment referring to only the first half of the paragraph - the meeting with Cardinal Kaspar et al

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.'

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

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

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

'This page has intentionally been left blank'??

M.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Your scroll wheel broken, M.? It's on the last two screens, pp. III, IV and V.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

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.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Chesterbelloc, oops, sorry, thanks.

M.

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

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 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

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.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

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

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

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 ]

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

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.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

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....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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'!

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

That proves it then.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

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.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

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.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
those changes came in early 2009, before anybody knew anything about Ordinariates.

Tee Hee.

All the best, Pyx_e

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

[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.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

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?

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

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.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

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

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

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]

Friends

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

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.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

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 ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

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.

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

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.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

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]

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

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.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Precisely.

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

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.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

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...)

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

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 ]

Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :

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?

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

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.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

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.

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

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.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

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.....

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

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?

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

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 ]

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

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.

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by Tea (# 16619) on :

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?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Is the person who made this quote saying tht thw 'real' religion of the English people is more anti-papacy than Christianity ?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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% [Biased]

[code]

[ 05. September 2011, 00:46: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

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 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0