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 6)

 - 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.
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

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

--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.

Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

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

--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.

Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

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

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  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 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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

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

--------------------
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
egg
Shipmate
# 3982

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

--------------------
egg

Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

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


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

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

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

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

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

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227

 - Posted      Profile for Magic Wand   Email Magic Wand   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
badman
Shipmate
# 9634

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

Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

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

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

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

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  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 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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922

 - Posted      Profile for Stranger in a strange land   Email Stranger in a strange land   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 608 | From: 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 
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.

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

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  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 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.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  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 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

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is unfortunate he comes across so badly in that article. It really doesn't give confidence.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

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

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

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[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.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

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

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

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Failed to delete "why should I believe this" at the end of point six.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 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 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.

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

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All well and good. But how does this advance our understanding concerning the CBS funds transfer?

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

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

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

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

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

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

Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664

 - Posted      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 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.

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  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 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).
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  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 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
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

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

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
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 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

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'This page has intentionally been left blank'??

M.

Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Your scroll wheel broken, M.? It's on the last two screens, pp. III, IV and V.
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Mgr Burnham's saying:

quote:
I don’t think I have ever suggested to anybody that they join the Ordinariate, lay person or priest, but what I have done is respond to people when they have asked me about it.
is not about the period prior to the announcement on Anglicanorum Coetibus in 2009. It is referring to the period between that and his resignation on 31 December 2010.
Either Burnham was lying through his teeth or I am suffering from severe memory loss. I saw an article in the Ebbsfleet leaflet about people moving on a pilgrimage at different speeds, of his job as leader to go ahead of them and assure them that it would be OK etc. etc. Some of my friends in the FiF church up the road from me were excited that he'd given them such firm leadership - and they have gone over to Rome. Others said they now knew why the symbol of a bishop is 'a crook.'
You can refresh your memory here:

http://www.ebbsfleet.org.uk/2010/ebbex10j.pdf

Thanks - that is how I remember it. Fair enough, he sets out the options and their cost. However, the reader can be in no doubt which option he would prefer people to take, couched as it is with rich biblical metaphor.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oscar & Pyx_e, thanks for your replies. I see what you mean. Though to be honest I had rather been focusing on the probity of the whole course of action, rather than on whether it might have been a stitch-up. A perfectly reasonable point to explore, though I still feel it secondary to the main one which stands, irrespective of whether the thing was engineered this way or not.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chesterbelloc, oops, sorry, thanks.

M.

Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
egg
Shipmate
# 3982

 - Posted      Profile for egg   Author's homepage   Email egg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
"The CBS membership rules changed before the announcement of an Ordinariate"



It's the change in tbe rules that was so wrong, however it was brought about. Previously the CBS had been a Society in which all members could join together in a celebration of Holy Communion or the Mass. The consequence of admitting Roman Catholics to membership was to make this impossible.

While Church of England priests are usually willing to give communion to Roman Catholics, as they are to any Christians in good standing, Roman Catholics are forbidden to receive it from them, and anyway do not recognise that the Eucharist can be validly celbrated by anyone other than a validly ordained priest, which does not of course include an Anglican priest (Cathechism; para.1411; Apostolicae Curae); and on the other hand Roman Catholic celebrants are forbidden to give communion to non-Roman Catholics except with special permission, which is rarely given.

The admission of Roman Catholics to membership of the CBS necessarily broke the unity of the Society, which had existed for 148 years specifically for those Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England who wished to remain loyal to their church and did not wish to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. If there had been no grant of £1 million to the Ordinariate in mind, the admission of Roman Catholics to this Church of England Society would have made no sense whatever.

I am sorry to have to say that it becomes more and more clear that it was a carefully worked out scheme to provide financial support for the Anglican priests who had already decided to join the Ordinariate. On the way the requirements of the law, such as the fundamental requirement that trustees, in making decisions, must not allow their duty and their interest to conflict, were simply brushed aside or ignored.

[code]

[ 27. August 2011, 02:30: Message edited by: John Holding ]

--------------------
egg

Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's also the case that irrespective of any change in the make up of its members, the charity still has to function so as to achieve its original objects.

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

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's also the case that irrespective of any change in the make up of its members, the charity still has to function so as to achieve its original objects.

I'm pretty sure that a charity can change its "objects", but it would need a formal vote at an AGM to do that. But that needs a legally competent overview, not the passing comments of someone like me.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664

 - Posted      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 Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's also the case that irrespective of any change in the make up of its members, the charity still has to function so as to achieve its original objects.

I'm pretty sure that a charity can change its "objects", but it would need a formal vote at an AGM to do that. But that needs a legally competent overview, not the passing comments of someone like me.
The Objects of the CBS were legally changed by a Charity Commission scheme in 1999
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But have they been changed now to cover the way this £1M has been spent?

Even a resolution of the AGM would not change the objects. It would be the first stage to asking the Charity Commission to authorise a change. From experience of the Charity Commission, they don't automatically authorise exactly what a charity asks for.

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

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
egg
Shipmate
# 3982

 - Posted      Profile for egg   Author's homepage   Email egg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

I'm pretty sure that a charity can change its "objects", but it would need a formal vote at an AGM to do that.



Yes, many charities include in their constitution a power to make amendments and a procedure for doing so. But if the charity is registered it is required to notify the Charity Commission of any change in its constitution and to supply the Commission with copies of any alterations: Charities Act 1993 s.3B(3)(b) as amended. It does not appear from the Charity Commission's register of the CBS that the changes in the Constitution made in 2009 and 2010 were notified to the Commission; and in view of the disregard for the law that Christopher Pwearson and his colleagues have shown as trustees it would quite surprise me if they were. It would have needed an unusually perceptive and knowledgeable officer of the Commission to have noticed that, by the change in May 2010 by which membership of the CBS was opened to members of the Ordinariate (which did not come into existence for another 8 months), would wreck the unity of the CBS, and to advise the Trustees that the change could only affect donations received after the change took effect, so that all the assets held by the CBS at the date of the change remained on wholly Anglican trusts.

Was the Holy Spirit at work to-day? In my parish church (and I think many others) the Gospel reading (as it was in the broadcast service at 0810) included the saying of Jesus to Peter "You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things" (Mt.16.23 NRSV); while the offertory hymn was W.H. Turton's hymn, each of the first three verses of which ends "may we all one Bread, one Body be, One through this Sacrament of unity" (NEH 302). This was an object that could be achieved by members of the CBS participating in a celebration of the Eucharist before Roman Catholics were admitted to membership, but it can no longer be achieved, since any celebration of the Eucharist by the CBS is no longer capable of being a Sacrament of unity.

The Bishop of Rome is quick to claim that Jesus' saying to Peter a few verses earlier (Mt.16.18), "On this rock I will build my church", applies to Peter's successors as Bishops of Rome. I do not think he is quite so quick to acknowledge that the saying to Peter in v.23 must, on the same reasoning, apply to Peter's successors as Bishops of Rome too; though sometimes it seems very apt.

[ 29. August 2011, 00:39: Message edited by: John Holding ]

--------------------
egg

Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
The Bishop of Rome is quick to claim that Jesus' saying to Peter a few verses earlier (Mt.16.18), "On this rock I will build my church", applies to Peter's successors as Bishops of Rome. I do not think he is quite so quick to acknowledge that the saying to Peter in v.23 must, on the same reasoning, apply to Peter's successors as Bishops of Rome too; though sometimes it seems very apt.

To be fair to him, BXVI (and definitely his predecessor JPI, who was elected 33 years ago today) openly acknowledges both the strengths and failings of the Petrine ministry.

--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.

Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Was the Holy Spirit at work to-day? In my parish church (and I think many others) the Gospel reading (as it was in the broadcast service at 0810) included the saying of Jesus to Peter "You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things" (Mt.16.23 NRSV); while the offertory hymn was W.H. Turton's hymn, each of the first three verses of which ends "may we all one Bread, one Body be, One through this Sacrament of unity" (NEH 302).

The Holy Ghost was teaching us all a lesson about the Ordinariate through the details of your particular morning eucharist? That would have been very, um, inscrutable of Him indeed....

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

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Was the Holy Spirit at work to-day? In my parish church (and I think many others) the Gospel reading (as it was in the broadcast service at 0810) included the saying of Jesus to Peter "You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things" (Mt.16.23 NRSV); while the offertory hymn was W.H. Turton's hymn, each of the first three verses of which ends "may we all one Bread, one Body be, One through this Sacrament of unity" (NEH 302).

We had the same Gospel reading and later sang 'Sweet Sacrament Divine'!

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged



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