homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: One Million more reasons to join the Ordinariate. (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: One Million more reasons to join the Ordinariate.
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with 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?

[accursed page-turn!]

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

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994

 - Posted      Profile for Adrian1   Email Adrian1   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue

Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think anyone that really hopes for Christian love between Anglicans and former Anglicans admits that that is was unethical, Adrian.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How many people have actually joined the Ordinariate?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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....

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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).

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664

 - Posted      Profile for The Man with a Stick   Email The Man with a Stick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994

 - Posted      Profile for Adrian1   Email Adrian1   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue

Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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"!
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.

Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919

 - Posted      Profile for Solly     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
badman
Shipmate
# 9634

 - Posted      Profile for badman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The second pull on the handle of the one armed bandit didn't drop a penny.

Church Union

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.

Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 '+' ?

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664

 - Posted      Profile for The Man with a Stick   Email The Man with a Stick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought presbyters properly put the cross after their names, not preceding the name as is true for bishops.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751

 - Posted      Profile for 3rdFooter   Email 3rdFooter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom

Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664

 - Posted      Profile for The Man with a Stick   Email The Man with a Stick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689

 - Posted      Profile for MarsmanTJ   Email MarsmanTJ   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689

 - Posted      Profile for MarsmanTJ   Email MarsmanTJ   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.

Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right. So, in other words, what Angloid said.

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

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools