Ship of Fools: Ordinariate repays £1 million

Thread: Ordinariate repays £1 million Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023280

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :

The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament has been told by the Charity Commission that it's controversial grant of £1 million to the Ordinariate:-

quote:
was taken at an inquorate meeting, the majority of the trustees having a (financial) personal interest in the decision. It was also in breach of the charity’s governing document.

The Ordinariate was, therefore, legally bound to return the money, and has done so.

The Trustees who made this decision have issued a statement in which they say:-

quote:
We were not altogether surprised that, when the payment of the grant came into the public domain, there was adverse comment and a number of complaints to the Charity Commission about what we had done.

Having lost their legal case with the Charity Commission, they have decided not to take it further, despite saying they disagree with the Charity Commission ruling.

Shouldn't the trustees now resign? There is no apology or contrition in their statement at all, and no indication that resignation has even occurred to them.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I find the whole thing very sad. I get the CBS leaflet/booklet that they regularly produce and I have to say that over the last couple of years it has been dripping with a shadowy invective and underhand jibe that has made me feel dirty even reading it. It's been clear to many people that the confraternity had lost its way even before this came to light.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Honesty, integrity and perspective are the first things to disappear from those who become politicians. Even (or maybe especially) ecclesiastical politicians.

Posted by filius clavi (# 10527) on :

quote:
Originally posted by badman:

Shouldn't the trustees now resign?

While there's been no announcement of any resignations that I can see, the CBS website now lists new general officers and trustees (none of whom, I beleive, are members of the ordinariate).

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Certainly the gist of the trustees' statement seems to be that if only our misdeeds had been kept secret nobody would have minded.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Certainly the gist of the trustees' statement seems to be that if only our misdeeds had been kept secret nobody would have minded.

Ephesians 5:11-13
English Standard Version (ESV)
11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible,

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

I have to say that the trustee I know is a deeply honourable man with much integrity.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

badman:

quote:
Shouldn't the trustees now resign? There is no apology or contrition in their statement at all, and no indication that resignation has even occurred to them.

As far as they are concerned, just because they didn't appeal the Charity Commission's decision for practical reasons doesn't mean they were wrong. So no need for anyone to resign. [Roll Eyes]

Does anyone have a link to the Confraternity's documents of establishment? I believe there was a link on the thread discussing the grant when it was made.

The statement the trustees have made at this juncture say:

quote:
...it {the Confraternity} was specifically created as a means of enabling former Anglicans to enter into communion with the Holy See while continuing to preserve and share their rich Anglican traditions.

Really? I don't remember that as it's purpose at all. But I'd like to re-read it to see if I missed something.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I have to say that the trustee I know is a deeply honourable man with much integrity.

If somewhat worse off than usual.

AtB Pyx_e

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

quote:
Originally posted by filius clavi:

quote:
Originally posted by badman:

Shouldn't the trustees now resign?
While there's been no announcement of any resignations that I can see, the CBS website now lists new general officers and trustees (none of whom, I beleive, are members of the ordinariate).

Indeed - it appears they have all resigned/been pushed.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

Presumably they thought the money would be better spent on the trust's charitable objects in the Ordinariate than in the failing Church of England. Legally questionable but not necessarily morally.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I have to say that the trustee I know is a deeply honourable man with much integrity.

It was the perspective that went missing.

A normal balanced secular trustee would have sought the prior written consent of the Charity Commission BEFORE a transaction of this sort.

Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :

"Presumably they thought the money would be better spent on the trust's charitable objects in the Ordinariate than in the failing Church of England. Legally questionable but not necessarily morally".

The trustees of a registered charity can't ignore its stated objects on a whim. The CBS trustees knew they were skating on very thin ice when they handed over half of the charity's assets to the Ordinariate. They cannot use the legal advice they received as a defence - legal advice is only as good as the instructions on which it is based. The trustees were/are priests for goodness sake - they knew exactly what they were doing. And what was the Ordinariate leadership thinking of when it accepted the donation?
A moral decision it was not - for either party.
Will the Walsingham nuns return their £10,000 gift?

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

The whole business is terribly, terribly sad.

I think Angloid was right about integrity.

[Waterworks]

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

The law is very clear that Trustees, even if appointed by another body, are meant to set aside all other considerations and loyalties and act only in the interests of the charity as set out in its constitution.

While I understand what led the Trustees to believe they were acting in the best interests of some if not all supporters of the charity, I can't see how giving away a sizeable chunk of its money to another group can be seen as acting in the best interests of the charity itself.

They could possibly have argued that the creation of the Ordinariate made the charity defunct, and its assets should be given to the Ordinariate, but the Charity Commissioners would have to agree to that.

The assets of any charity have been acquired from people or organisations which support that charity's aims. As a trustee, you can't just decide that you like another charity better than the one of which you are a trustee and reallocate funds accordingly.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Presumably they thought the money would be better spent on the trust's charitable objects in the Ordinariate than in the failing Church of England. Legally questionable but not necessarily morally.

Well, I don’t think the ilegality had anything to do with the fact that the Ordinariate isn’t in communion with +Canterbury. If that is the case, no continuing Anglican body can ever get anything from the CBS. It seems to me to be more a case of a conflict of interest.

In my estimate, the Ordinariate isn’t less Anglican than, say, the TAC.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Presumably they thought the money would be better spent on the trust's charitable objects in the Ordinariate than in the failing Church of England. Legally questionable but not necessarily morally.

of which in particular:

quote:
in the failing Church of England.

needs a little unpacking by you.

Define failing? (very carefully) and in particular regard to how it is "failing" more than the Roman Catholic denomination. Honestly I think you wrote that when you were upset and may need to withdraw it.

Also if you accept it is Legally questionable then it becomes morally questionable too.

My presumption was "they thought they would get away with it and were proved wrong." Legally and Morally.

AtB Pyx_e.

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

The real wrong turning taken by the CBS occurred when, 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. At that date, of course, the Trustees were nominally still members of the Church of England; but they knew that those who joined the Ordinariate when it was established on 15 January 2011 would become Roman Catholics, and that the Papal Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, which had been issued on 4 November 2009, expressly stated that “5. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate”.

Roman Catholics do not accept that Anglican priests are validly ordained or are capable of celebrating a valid Eucharist, and at a Eucharist or Mass celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest he is not permitted, save in exceptional circumstances, to give communion to Anglicans. The decision of the Council-General of the CBS, which cannot have been debated properly or fully thought out, therefore necessarily wrecked the unity of the CBS, and prevented members of the one Confraternity from fully worshipping together at the Eucharist as from 15 January 2011, when members began transferring to the Ordinariate.

The Trustees, soon (with one exception) to become Roman Catholic members of the Ordinariate, no doubt planned ahead for the transfer of the £1 million from the funds of the CBS, although it is an Anglican society, to the Roman Catholic Ordinariate which was yet to be formed; but I very much doubt whether this, or any other consequences of the decision it was asked to make, was made clear to the Council-General of the CBS in April 2010.

It is this decision, which paved the way, as the Trustees thought, to the funding of the Ordinariate from the resources of the CBS, that was plainly inconsistent with the whole essence of the CBS; and it was this decision that led to the payment of the £1 million to the Roman Caholic Ordinariate that the Charity Commission has now held to have been an invalid exercise of the powers of the then Trustees and thus a breach of trust.

The Roman Catholic Trustees of the CBS have now resigned their trusteeship, and presumably their membership; and it is to be assumed that any other members of the CBS who joined the Ordinariate have similarly resigned their membership, since it is wholly incompatible with the objects of the Ordinariate.

However the Ordinariate has now repaid to the CBS the £1 million with interest, and we can, I hope, agree with it in its "sincere hope", expressed in its statement of 28 June, "that the conclusion of the legal process regarding this grant may now lay this issue to rest."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am glad this has been sorted out.

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

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am glad this has been sorted out.

Quite. This whole sorry episode has brought out the worst in all sides. However strongly one felt about this, the name-calling and personal attacks on the Facebook protest group were disgraceful.

I already note that one blog was posted on this episode today, before swiftly being removed again!

FWIW, my views closely align with Fr Gollop on his blog, as so often Linky

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
I already note that one blog was posted on this episode today, before swiftly being removed again!

It's still in Google's cache if you're quick. [Biased]

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

Law will only ever reflect the legalities of a situation and does not sort right from wrong. I felt a split was reasonable- 50/50 is what would happen in a divorce.

Nevertheless I can see why some are pleased that a legal process went their way, and do not blame them for feeling happy. Well done! But... and it is HUGE...

I am perplexed at the attitude of many I thought were friends. People who once claimed to seek unity with Rome. Who you might imagine, would have wanted to see the Ordinariate flourish, if only as an insurance policy! But instead we had that vile Facebook page which, if I was still an Anglican, would shame me very, very deeply. It was frankly awful.

Why the lack of recognition of a different perspective that sees the Ordinariate as a work of unity and worth supporting? And why the blatant triumphalism? Will those engaging in it today seek sympathy when synod's winners triumph over them tomorrow?

For me the reason is this. Many who stayed are secretly fuming because synod is about to remove thier intellectual credibility in claiming to be in a truly Catholic church and, if we are honest, the Ordinariate does the same from the other end. The Pope called a bluff and that is deeply annoying if you secretly want to stay at any cost or cannot come for one reason or another.

These people have been building up anger for ages. There was nothing to hit synod with and nothing to hit the ordinariate with but then came CBS and - fantastic- a valid reason to give it the kicking of its life. And it was a kicking from angry frightened people that we witnessed on Facebook. A kicking in which liberals quickly joined in with great delight and relish. How many aff-caths were suddenly friends of CBS!

It is as if there has been a large transference of anger heaped on those who, with integrity, accepted the Ordinariate option. It says much that we have not, on the whole, engaged with it.

Finally I also think it sad that anyone would want to take money earmarked to assist with stipends and putting food on tables for a very young and financially uncertain initiative, in order to simply keep it for themselves. That is manifestly NOT what charity is about.

Those with church buildings, savings and lots of possesions were delighting today that 'I can buy lots of chasubles for £1m' The Ordinariate just lost the very little it might have had. That might seem churlish but who will support the first widow of an Ordinariate priest and the children? Ceetainly that is our question to answer but a little more understanding and a little less vitriol would have gone a long way.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

We have a welfare state you know.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Law will only ever reflect the legalities of a situation and does not sort right from wrong. I felt a split was reasonable- 50/50 is what would happen in a divorce.

Imma stop you right there. This is not a divorce. People are leaving the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic Church. They do not have the right to walk off with whatever they like.

quote:
That might seem churlish but who will support the first widow of an Ordinariate priest and the children?

They get whatever portion of their stipend they earned. Past that the Roman Catholic Church will have to take care of Roman Catholic priests.

[ 29. June 2012, 17:35: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

"Stipend" meaning "Pension," naturally.

Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :

Rugbyplayingpriest - Haven't you been gagged?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
How many aff-caths were suddenly friends of CBS!

I am AffCath. For many years I regularly attended CBS monthly meetings, often acting as either thurifer or MC. No suddenness here.

If is constructive to consider the views of other 'catholic societies' to the ordinariate e.g. the GSS, of which I am a member, regards those who 'go over' to it as, in the words of our warden, 'traitors' and those whop join the ordinariate are removed from GSS membership automatically. We are urgent to remain loyal to the C of E and continue to fight for the catholic cause. We have been through dark times before and, mercifully, no longer are confronted by 'dungeon, fire and sword.'

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Law will only ever reflect the legalities of a situation and does not sort right from wrong. I felt a split was reasonable- 50/50 is what would happen in a divorce.

But it was not a divorce, you left home, you were unfaithful to your promises, you tried to take the family silver, and the Law made you give it back. Your opinion is at best irrelevant and at worst a sign of your huge self-delusion over this issue. I continue to pray for members of the Ordinariate, rejoice in their new found, oft longed for Spiritual home and I have supported them financially. But everyone who is not a sympathiser of the Ordinariate’s ideals (and many Roman Catholics) have been trying to tell you guys this was a mistake from Day One.

quote:
Nevertheless I can see why some are pleased that a legal process went their way, and do not blame them for feeling happy. Well done! But... and it is HUGE...

Your perplexion in the next paragraph has been answered in this one. A million pounds is HUGE, and over half the capital of the CBS.

quote:
I am perplexed at the attitude of many I thought were friends. People who once claimed to seek unity with Rome. Who you might imagine, would have wanted to see the Ordinariate flourish, if only as an insurance policy! But instead we had that vile Facebook page which, if I was still an Anglican, would shame me very, very deeply. It was frankly awful.
Why the lack of recognition of a different perspective that sees the Ordinariate as a work of unity and worth supporting? And why the blatant triumphalism? Will those engaging in it today seek sympathy when synod's winners triumph over them tomorrow?

Friends don’t try and run of with the family silver. I seek Unity with Rome, just as I seek Unity with the Orthodox and many other Denominations. I am not prepared to give up everything central to Anglicanism while pretending that dressing it up in some vague term like “Patrimony” is cloth enough to cover up the nakedness of what is truly left.

You and your leadership have form the very start misunderstood the support for this project and Rome within the Catholic wing of the church. The numbers joining are nowhere near what I know most of what your leaders were expecting, the CBS affair is but a further example of miscalculated support. That is your problem, not those you over or underestimated (whichever way you look at it)

You (consistently) mistake “take-over” with “Unity.” The Ordinariate is not offering Unity it is offering that which was always available, the chance to become a Roman Catholic. Another perspective you miss is what has happened to the Catholic wing of the C of E since you left. I suspect it may suit you to think that it is collapsing but actually you have done most of us a great service. You have forced us to decide. The Ordinariate was a fork in the road. Everyone I speak with is actually in a better place, excepting a few who plan to join the Ordinariate on retirement ( I still can’t get my head round that one).

As for the truly awful Facebook stuff (which I have never read since FB is the work of the Devil) I can only add that some of the stuff written in Ordinate leaning blogs which I do read is truly awful too, a plague on all houses that resort to mudslinging and despair.

quote:
For me the reason is this. Many who stayed are secretly fuming because synod is about to remove thier intellectual credibility in claiming to be in a truly Catholic church and, if we are honest, the Ordinariate does the same from the other end. The Pope called a bluff and that is deeply annoying if you secretly want to stay at any cost or cannot come for one reason or another.

See that just reads like you writing how you wish we feel. Just to let you know (and as said previously) we are grateful for the Ordinariate giving a clear choice. No bluff was called, choices were made. Most here are flourishing now this issue has been resolved. As for those who “cannot come” may I assure you it is not the C of E that is preventing them, let the reader understand.

quote:
These people have been building up anger for ages. There was nothing to hit synod with and nothing to hit the ordinariate with but then came CBS and - fantastic- a valid reason to give it the kicking of its life. And it was a kicking from angry frightened people that we witnessed on Facebook. A kicking in which liberals quickly joined in with great delight and relish. How many aff-caths were suddenly friends of CBS!

I refer you to my previous sentences, a plague on any house who falls into mudslinging.

quote:
It is as if there has been a large transference of anger heaped on those who, with integrity, accepted the Ordinariate option. It says much that we have not, on the whole, engaged with it.

Or; it may be some were angry that the family silver was disappeared overnight, with some obvious forethought. And you are right the leadership of the Ordinariate have failed to engage with their sin.

quote:
Finally I also think it sad that anyone would want to take money earmarked to assist with stipends and putting food on tables for a very young and financially uncertain initiative, in order to simply keep it for themselves. That is manifestly NOT what charity is about.

What you think you had planned to do with what was not yours is of little consequence. The Charity Commissioners would, I hope, know what charity was about and they decided what your Leadership did was not charitable. You show me a Christian priest of any denomination who cannot feed him/herself or their family, just show me, you have my details.

quote:
Those with church buildings, savings and lots of possesions were delighting today that 'I can buy lots of chasubles for £1m' The Ordinariate just lost the very little it might have had. That might seem churlish but who will support the first widow of an Ordinariate priest and the children? Ceetainly that is our question to answer but a little more understanding and a little less vitriol would have gone a long way.

Statistically the Church of England’s pension board will support the vast majority of Widows for the next 10 to 20 years. After that who knows, the Roman Catholic church must have some provision surely? Pensions are not for Children, they get to grow up and make their own provision. What little support you may have had left with CBS goes flying out of the window when you describe the work of a long standing and much loved charity as supplying chasubles. Don’t think your upset over vitriol on FB carries any weight with me either. You wrestle with pigs you get covered with mud.

Your plea for understanding must be mutual. Please leave off the C of E, you left, now emotionally leave too. Indeed one of the reasons that I remain firmly Anglican is that I can say and write what I want, when I want in any way I want, not something that can be said of those under the Authority of Rome. The crazy thing is I as an Anglican chose to be mostly quiet about it all while Ordinariate members who seem to be banned from writing or speaking, yet STILL can’t leave it alone.

AtB Pyx_e.

Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :

quote:
Law will only ever reflect the legalities of a situation and does not sort right from wrong.

The law does indeed strive to sort right from wrong otherwise we would live in a state of anarchy and likely suffer from collective autism - 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' - is that your mantra, Rugbyplaying priest? The £1 million donation scandal has damaged the integrity of the Ordinariate and each defiant refusal to acknowledge that the donation was wrong and that the Ordinariate was wrong to accept it makes the fledgling group's rehabilitation in the eyes of Anglo-Catholics less likely.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest
That might seem churlish but who will support the first widow of an Ordinariate priest and the children?

Two questions:-

1. Is providing support for needy clergy widows and children within the objects of the Confraternity?

2. Was providing for needy Anglo-Catholic clergy widows and children what it was using its money for back when the ordinariate was but a twinkle in the eye of a senior German cardinal?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

No on both counts, Enoch.
The Confraternity was a spiritual and religious movement linked to a central act of Anglican worship and community prayer; namely the Eucharist. It helped to pay for robes, prayer books, aumbry's, Bibles, wine, sanctuary lamps etc. It was essentially formed to bolster and support the aims and spirituality expressed by the Anglican ritualist movements of the nineteenth century. I'm sure your questions were rhetorical, but just in case there are those reading this thread without knowing the background, we are actually talking about an Anglican charity established to specifically support Anglicans.

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

It was formed to promote Catholicism within the Church of England. One could as easily point to modern Anglicanism, and certainly Affirming Catholicism, as being as unrecognisable to the founders as the Ordinariate would be. The point is surely that so much has happened since the 19th Century, especially due to women's ordination, to make the present situation one that nobody would have seen coming... and so nothing is as clear as they would like.

As to the mean spirited tearing apart of my previous post. Fine. I have no desire to argue. Enjoy your money - and delight in crushing us stinking traitors. Enjoy...I really do not care.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I know, so much has happened since the nineteenth century, you're right. They even ordain those coloureds from the colonies now.

[ 29. June 2012, 20:48: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

Are you trying to imply I am racist?

Then you must be very dim... what has changed is that the Catholic claim of the Church of England has been hugely damaged by the invention of synod and a belief it can change doctrine without consultation with the wider universal church. Nothing there makes me rascist...or am I missing something?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

oh god.....

You left to go to a happy place. Now fucking get over it already.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

That's the usual argument of groups leaving the Episcopal Church with Church property too. "The law of the state and constitution of the Church don't matter, since we're theologically right."

[ 29. June 2012, 20:53: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
No on both counts, Enoch.
The Confraternity was a spiritual and religious movement linked to a central act of Anglican worship and community prayer; namely the Eucharist. It helped to pay for robes, prayer books, aumbry's, Bibles, wine, sanctuary lamps etc. It was essentially formed to bolster and support the aims and spirituality expressed by the Anglican ritualist movements of the nineteenth century. I'm sure your questions were rhetorical, but just in case there are those reading this thread without knowing the background, we are actually talking about an Anglican charity established to specifically support Anglicans.

In that case, even if the Charity Commission had decided that helping to provide the Ordinariate with a selection of robes, prayer books, aumbry's, Bibles, wine, sanctuary lamps etc. was within its objectives, giving the Ordinariate's general fund £1M as a golden hello would still not have been OK.

quote:
originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest
a belief it can change doctrine without consultation with the wider universal church

Did Pio Nono consult the wider universal church before propounding Pastor Aeturnus or Ineffabilis Deus?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I know, so much has happened since the nineteenth century, you're right. They even ordain those coloureds from the colonies now.

Many non-whites were ordained in Victorian times. A look at various Anglican calendars will let you into the lives of the Cree Henry Budd, priested in 1850, and the Yoruba Samuel Crowther, priest in 1842 and bishop in 1864, among others.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest
That might seem churlish but who will support the first widow of an Ordinariate priest and the children?

Given that the Roman Catholic church is both massively wealthy and heavily engaged in charitable works, I am reasonably sure that they won't be left to starve, even without the provisions of the welfare state. I can understand why the funds of the Confraternity would have been welcome for other purposes - some of them very necessary - but that doesn't legitimise the use of CBS money in such a way. Just as the CBS could probably do a lot of immediate good by donating it's entire funds to Oxfam - be that as it may, it is not what it is there for!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Are you trying to imply I am racist?

Then you must be very dim... what has changed is that the Catholic claim of the Church of England has been hugely damaged by the invention of synod and a belief it can change doctrine without consultation with the wider universal church. Nothing there makes me rascist...or am I missing something?

I do not recall that the doctrines of such matters as Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception were ever discussed at an Ecumenical Council to which those of the Eastern Orthodox churches at least were invited, or consulted.

[ 29. June 2012, 23:13: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :

rugbyplayingpriest

quote:
I am perplexed at the attitude of many I thought were friends

If the CBS trustees had consulted the membership in respect of whether the Ordinariate qualified for financial help under the aims and objects of the charity or whether agreement could be reached to bring them into the fold, your friends would probably still be with you. As it is, the trustees knew they were batting off a dodgy wicket and decided (at enormous cost to the funds) to see if the law would provide a short cut.
Bankers eat your heart out! - the former CBS trustees and the Ordinariate leadership can teach you a thing or two.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Solly:
rugbyplayingpriest
quote:
I am perplexed at the attitude of many I thought were friends
If the CBS trustees had consulted the membership in respect of whether the Ordinariate qualified for financial help under the aims and objects of the charity or whether agreement could be reached to bring them into the fold, your friends would probably still be with you. As it is, the trustees knew they were batting off a dodgy wicket and decided (at enormous cost to the funds) to see if the law would provide a short cut.
Bankers eat your heart out! - the former CBS trustees and the Ordinariate leadership can teach you a thing or two.

As we all know, the true purpose of every charity, that first purpose which prevails over any other budgetary demand, and to which the CBS has so admirably contributed, is the redistribution of wealth from the support of the poor and needy in general and the advancement of religion and learning to that subgroup of the poor, needy, holy and ignorant that happens to be qualified as solicitors and barristers.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I seek Unity with Rome, just as I seek Unity with the Orthodox and many other Denominations. I am not prepared to give up everything central to Anglicanism while pretending that dressing it up in some vague term like “Patrimony” is cloth enough to cover up the nakedness of what is truly left.

...

You (consistently) mistake “take-over” with “Unity.” The Ordinariate is not offering Unity it is offering that which was always available, the chance to become a Roman Catholic. Another perspective you miss is what has happened to the Catholic wing of the C of E since you left. I suspect it may suit you to think that it is collapsing but actually you have done most of us a great service. You have forced us to decide. The Ordinariate was a fork in the road. Everyone I speak with is actually in a better place, excepting a few who plan to join the Ordinariate on retirement ( I still can’t get my head round that one).

Quite so. Desiring unity with the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have to mean individuals decamping. My vision of unity between Anglicans and Roman Catholics is for the See of Canterbury to be in full communion with the See of Rome. It's not a hope I expect to see realised in my lifetime (and I'm only 23!), but that doesn't to me seem good reason to abandon the project.

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That's the usual argument of groups leaving the Episcopal Church with Church property too. "The law of the state and constitution of the Church don't matter, since we're theologically right."

Perhaps preferably to being theologically wrong yet under the protection of the law.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Yes. The only consolation we have is our lucre. How dare they take that away. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Did Pio Nono consult the wider universal church before propounding Pastor Aeturnus or Ineffabilis Deus?

Since neither of these changed the doctrine of the Catholic Church but merely confirmed it, the comparison is otiose. In any event, the answer is that first you mention came in direct response to a resolution of an Ecumenical Council of the Church and the second after writing to every bishop, religious superior and Catholic University in the world to seek their views on what the faith of the Catholic Church was, it would seem the answer to your question is yes.

If your question relates to the particular way in which Anglicans use the term "wider universal church", then of course the answer is no. But whilst it seems sensible to hold Anglicans to operating in accordance with their own notions and claims regarding the "wider universal church" and the Anglican Communion's place in it, it seems rather strange to expect those who don't accept those notions and claims to be bound by them. Rugbyplayingpriest's point would seem to be that, since Anglicans have historically claimed and continue to claim to have no doctrine of their own but only that of the Church Catholic (an arch expression, if I ever heard one), then their capacity to change that doctrine must be self-limited. Since it is now clear that the Anglican definition of what forms part of that doctrine varies markedly from what either those churches in communion with Rome or those in communion with Constantinople, the claim is exposed for what it has always been: a sophistry.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I seek Unity with Rome, just as I seek Unity with the Orthodox and many other Denominations. I am not prepared to give up everything central to Anglicanism while pretending that dressing it up in some vague term like “Patrimony” is cloth enough to cover up the nakedness of what is truly left.

...

You (consistently) mistake “take-over” with “Unity.” The Ordinariate is not offering Unity it is offering that which was always available, the chance to become a Roman Catholic. Another perspective you miss is what has happened to the Catholic wing of the C of E since you left. I suspect it may suit you to think that it is collapsing but actually you have done most of us a great service. You have forced us to decide. The Ordinariate was a fork in the road. Everyone I speak with is actually in a better place, excepting a few who plan to join the Ordinariate on retirement ( I still can’t get my head round that one).
Quite so. Desiring unity with the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have to mean individuals decamping. My vision of unity between Anglicans and Roman Catholics is for the See of Canterbury to be in full communion with the See of Rome. It's not a hope I expect to see realised in my lifetime (and I'm only 23!), but that doesn't to me seem good reason to abandon the project.

There will never be unity because Canterbury has chosen division. It is merely catching up with it's Erastian fellow travellers in the Scandinavian state churches. The mealy mouthed facile statements of "ecumenists" that everything is possible with God or we can't foresee the movement of the Holy Spirit are asinine to the point of insulting intelligence.

There will not be unity, there never will be unity and people on both sides would be a damned sight better off if they stopped indulging in childish fantasies and had the balls to be honest.

If Anglicans want unity it's Ordinariate or bust. The end.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

It's not like that, CL. If the pope and his followers ever want to come back to the One True Church, we will welcome them with open arms.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's not like that, CL. If the pope and his followers ever want to come back to the One True Church, we will welcome them with open arms.

I could respect such a position if Anglicanism actually claimed it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

That makes sense?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by CL:

quote:

If Anglicans want unity it's Ordinariate or bust. The end.

...and the moderate RC strikes again, hehe.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by CL:

quote:

If Anglicans want unity it's Ordinariate or bust. The end.
...and the moderate RC strikes again, hehe.

Harsh truths are rarely appreciated.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That makes sense?

Anglicanism makes no claim to be the One True Church. On what basis does it thus base its authority to do as it pleases given repeated claims to having no doctrine other than that of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That makes sense?
Anglicanism makes no claim to be the One True Church. On what basis does it thus base its authority to do as it pleases given repeated claims to having no doctrine other than that of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Are you implying if the C of E did have that authority and doctrine you would not "remove our funds" to a "proper" home?

AtB Pyx_e

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

There will not be unity, there never will be unity and people on both sides would be a damned sight better off if they stopped indulging in childish fantasies and had the balls to be honest.

Couldn't agree more.

Bullshit ecumenism is finally bearing fruit tho. It has become about work.

Working together for the Kingdom.

No more of this vapid poncing about. Time for the real shit - the practical outworking of all our various faiths.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

Does this mean I might get a grant now? Or do you have to be ABC?

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Are you implying if the C of E did have that authority and doctrine you would not "remove our funds" to a "proper" home?

AtB Pyx_e

Did CL talk about doing any such thing?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Are you implying if the C of E did have that authority and doctrine you would not "remove our funds" to a "proper" home?

AtB Pyx_e
Did CL talk about doing any such thing?

Nor was this thread about it but it did not stop him banging on about it.

AtB Pyx_e

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

There will not be unity, there never will be unity and people on both sides would be a damned sight better off if they stopped indulging in childish fantasies and had the balls to be honest.

Couldn't agree more.

Bullshit ecumenism is finally bearing fruit tho. It has become about work.

Working together for the Kingdom.

No more of this vapid poncing about. Time for the real shit - the practical outworking of all our various faiths.

Funny how there is not one mention of Jesus Christ in that article.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Nor was this thread about it but it did not stop him banging on about it.

AtB Pyx_e

To be fair, it wasn't he, by RugbyPlayingPriest who started banging on about it and CL picked up the tangent, but I take the point.

[ 30. June 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
There will never be unity because Canterbury has chosen division. It is merely catching up with it's Erastian fellow travellers in the Scandinavian state churches. The mealy mouthed facile statements of "ecumenists" that everything is possible with God or we can't foresee the movement of the Holy Spirit are asinine to the point of insulting intelligence.

There will not be unity, there never will be unity and people on both sides would be a damned sight better off if they stopped indulging in childish fantasies and had the balls to be honest.

If Anglicans want unity it's Ordinariate or bust. The end.

What a very depressing point of view. I don't agree with you (obviously) and I don't think your argument takes into account the last 50 years.

I think the establishment of the Ordinariate went very much against the tide of recent church history. In fifty years, I firmly believe it will be seen as a blip in ecumenical relations, rather than their conclusion.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

CL is basically right, if'n you ask me. Rome has basically always operated under the idea that unity could be achieved if Anglicans got over believing in their validity and started behaving like Roman Catholics. He's just saying what the 70's ecumenists wouldn't. To be fair, most Anglicans have been more or less the same- so long as Rome started acting Anglican we would all get along quite merrily.

In retrospect, the optimism of 70's theologians predicting imminent reunion seems to have been rather foolish. Of course, talk about ordination of women being a real ecumenical game changer is also silly, since we were not an inch closer to Rome recognizing our orders before we started ordaining women.

The Anglicans that wanted a pope have gotten one, the silver they tried to run off with has been restored, and now the ecumenical program can continue precisely as it was before.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
It was formed to promote Catholicism within the Church of England. One could as easily point to modern Anglicanism, and certainly Affirming Catholicism, as being as unrecognisable to the founders as the Ordinariate would be. The point is surely that so much has happened since the 19th Century, especially due to women's ordination, to make the present situation one that nobody would have seen coming... and so nothing is as clear as they would like.

As to the mean spirited tearing apart of my previous post. Fine. I have no desire to argue. Enjoy your money - and delight in crushing us stinking traitors. Enjoy...I really do not care.

Well, there we are then. Whatever the Ordinariate may be, it is surely not the promotion of Catholicism within the Church of England . It seemes to be more about the preservation of "Anglican patrimony" within the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever it's about, the Ordinariate doesn't promote anything within the Church of England, so if that remains the established point of the charity, the charity should not have been giving money to the Ordinariate.

As a non Catholic, non Anglican, non desiring to be either, I am sorry that some people seem to cause you so much unpleasantness. The Ordinariate appears to allow for some people to get what they have always wanted, and for others, it is not what they've always wanted. Both sides appear to be free to carry on pursuing their ambitions.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
... Of course, talk about ordination of women being a real ecumenical game changer is also silly, since we were not an inch closer to Rome recognizing our orders before we started ordaining women....

Maybe so, but before it happened it was possible to envisage some sort of 'convalidation' or 'reception' of Anglican Orders that might be acceptable. Now it is completely impossible.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

No just give Rome another four hundred years and it might well be considering it.

Jengie

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

I find it rather disturbing that the CBS (the CofE branch that is -- I've no idea of the wealth of its branches in TEC or elsewhere)were sitting on such a massive pile of money in the first place. Surely, the charity should dispurse its funds more liberally and regularly so that it never accumulates such a vast hoard of treasure. The operating expenses of the CBS can't be very great, surely. It doesn't really need to save for a rainy day. It shouldn't be banking such a large amount of money. Thoughts?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I find it rather disturbing that the CBS (the CofE branch that is -- I've no idea of the wealth of its branches in TEC or elsewhere)were sitting on such a massive pile of money in the first place. Surely, the charity should dispurse its funds more liberally and regularly so that it never accumulates such a vast hoard of treasure. The operating expenses of the CBS can't be very great, surely. It doesn't really need to save for a rainy day. It shouldn't be banking such a large amount of money. Thoughts?

I imagine the money is invested, and the income for the money funds the day-to-day expenses of the charity.

If, for instance, they had a return of 5% (which seems fairly conservative) that would be an annual income of £80000, plenty enough to live off, and perhaps increase the capital. So it's not just saving for a rainy day; it's guaranteeing its future income.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

It is the rule of most charities to only spend the income from investment and not touch capital. Another reason why the Ordinariate grab was frowned upon. To slightly understate the matter they dipped into capital.

AtB, Pyx_e

[ 30. June 2012, 17:48: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
I imagine the money is invested, and the income for the money funds the day-to-day expenses of the charity.

If, for instance, they had a return of 5% (which seems fairly conservative) that would be an annual income of £80000, plenty enough to live off, and perhaps increase the capital. So it's not just saving for a rainy day; it's guaranteeing its future income.

Just to confirm this point, have a look at the Charity Commission's page summarising CBS's accounts.

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1082897 &SubsidiaryNumber=0

So they have been spending a little more than their income in recent years, but not by a great deal. Certainly not by ~1100%.

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

I could understand this if we were talking about an institution that has a physical plant to maintain, in which case you certainly want to avoid dipping into the capital assets. My own parish church operates in this fashion, as do so many others. However, I don't see the CBS being in an analogous situation. How is sitting on such a large chunk of change advancing the objects of the charity?

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

As someone who has served on Boards from time to time, what appalled me most was the disbursement of such a large percentage of the funds at a meeting without a quorum.

Unless the rules of order are significantly different in England, that's a major breach of fiduciary trust. To be more blunt, it would be considered theft and people would be prosecuted.

I guess I missed the footnote in the Decalogue that says you can ignore the commandments as long as you are theologically correct...

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I could understand this if we were talking about an institution that has a physical plant to maintain, in which case you certainly want to avoid dipping into the capital assets. My own parish church operates in this fashion, as do so many others. However, I don't see the CBS being in an analogous situation. How is sitting on such a large chunk of change advancing the objects of the charity?

Because if they spent it there would be no charity, not in any meaningful sense.

If you look at the 2010 accounts you'll see that the CBS had income of £91727. £140 was from "activities for generating funds", £8542 was from "donations and legacies", while £83045 was "investment income". If they spent the capital in a blaze of glory (I'm sure you can think of an example) the charity would have very little income in future years. The objects of the charity would not be advanced by spending all the money in 2012 and having no charity at all in 2013.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
As someone who has served on Boards from time to time, what appalled me most was the disbursement of such a large percentage of the funds at a meeting without a quorum.

Unless the rules of order are significantly different in England, that's a major breach of fiduciary trust. To be more blunt, it would be considered theft and people would be prosecuted.

I guess I missed the footnote in the Decalogue that says you can ignore the commandments as long as you are theologically correct...

That's a symptom of running an organisation as though it were a private club for the benefit of a select set of members, in this case apparently the former board of directors of the CBS.

Also, further to my earlier posts, it should be pointed out that the CBS presumably doesn't have multiple significant staff salaries to pay, so this is another reason I fail to see why the capital should be allowed to grow to such an enormous amount (enormous for an outfit that is supposed to provide things like vestments, monstrances, devotional materials, and the periodic event and AGM).

[ 30. June 2012, 18:48: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
As someone who has served on Boards from time to time, what appalled me most was the disbursement of such a large percentage of the funds at a meeting without a quorum.

Unless the rules of order are significantly different in England, that's a major breach of fiduciary trust. To be more blunt, it would be considered theft and people would be prosecuted.

In their defence, they didn't believe they were inquorate. The Charity Commission has ruled that the meeting was inquorate because the majority of those attending were ineligible to vote on the matter because of their personal interest in the decision. The trustees believed that they did not have such a personal interest and therefore that the meeting was properly quorate.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Thanks, Basilica--that makes a little more sense.

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

Basilica, do you really think the CBS needs capital of 2 mil to operate effectively? And how much of the investment income is being spent on the objects of the charity, as opposed to being plowed back into its investment fund. One really gets the sense that the main object of the CBS - in the CofE anyway - is simply to perpetuate itself. It's ironic if the perpetuation of the charity should become more important than the mission of serving the objects of the charity.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

2 million is not a lot.

AtB, Pyx_e

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

I agree with Organ Builder. That seemed extraordinarily sloppy and prima facie evidence of trustee incompetence.

I don't, however, agree with the suggestion the charities should spend only their income. The Charity Commission's view has been, for the entire time I have been a charity trustee (17 years) the Commissions view is that, apart from permanent endowment, charitable trustees should seek to disburse the funds they hold in pursuit of the charitable objects, holding only those reserves that are necessary. The Commission's publication CC19 helpfully sets this out. It seems to me that if the trustees had been quorate (which they were not) and had the grant been within the objects (which the commission thinks not but which the charity's lawyers advised otherwise) then making such a grant would be perfectly reasonablesince the funds in question were not permanent endowment.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I'm with Pyx. 2 million bucks is the endowment of a single parish church, albeit a prosperous one. I think the Church should not be shy about putting away enough to live on. Lord knows there are hard times ahead.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
2 million is not a lot.

AtB, Pyx_e

It wouldn't be a lot for some types of organisations, but I would maintain that it's quite a lot for a devotional society with charitable aims of the type exemplified by the CBS. I also agree with what Trisagion has said about this matter.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Basilica, do you really think the CBS needs capital of 2 mil to operate effectively?

That rather depends on what "operating effectively" would mean.

quote:
And how much of the investment income is being spent on the objects of the charity, as opposed to being plowed back into its investment fund.

Slightly over 100%, as can be seen from the link I posted above. That is to say, they have been spending all of their investment income and a little of their capital each year.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm with Pyx. 2 million bucks is the endowment of a single parish church, albeit a prosperous one. I think the Church should not be shy about putting away enough to live on. Lord knows there are hard times ahead.

But it IS NOT a parish church, Zach. That's the point. It does not have the operating expenses of a parish church AFAIK.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The income from 2 million would certainly not support anything but the smallest congregation. £91,727 in less than $150,000- barely enough to pay for an office and a secretary on top of actually doing charitable activities.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm with Pyx. 2 million bucks is the endowment of a single parish church, albeit a prosperous one. I think the Church should not be shy about putting away enough to live on. Lord knows there are hard times ahead.

Not in England, it's not. Because CofE and CinW parishes have, historically, been exempt from filing charitable accounts with the Charity Commission, it's almost impossible to know, but I'd be staggered if more than a handful of parishes had an endowment of that size.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea. That would be a very large endowment by American standards as well, and endowments at many parishes are tied up for specific uses- very few of which include "paying the priest a living wage" or "keeping the roof from caving in or the electricity on."

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Yes, but that does rather assume the congregation aren't giving anything.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The income from 2 million would certainly not support anything but the smallest congregation. £91,727 in less than $150,000- barely enough to pay for an office and a secretary on top of actually doing charitable activities.

It would not support a "church" with 1000 laity and 100 clergy for sure.

So it was only ever intended to be a short term sticking plaster giving hopefully enough space/time to get some momentum. Understandable tactically but (as it transpires) poor strategically.

AtB , Pyx_e

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

Some of the TEC parishes on the East Coast, however, have endowments much greater than $2mil. These old places also tend to have high expenses, with a highly professionalised music programme, and sometimes quite smallish congregations (although some well-endowed Manhattan parishes are fortunate enough to have quite large congregations).

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Well, there we are then. Whatever the Ordinariate may be, it is surely not the promotion of Catholicism within the Church of England . It seemes to be more about the preservation of "Anglican patrimony" within the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever it's about, the Ordinariate doesn't promote anything within the Church of England, so if that remains the established point of the charity, the charity should not have been giving money to the Ordinariate.

If we poke around on the CBS website, we find a page with a Q&A document (pdf file from July 2011), from which we lern that CBS is “[not] a Church of England charity,” that “CBS is subject to neither Rome nor Canterbury” and that they have members “outside the Church of England.” This includes continuing anglican bodies, like the TAC. It seems to me, then, that the criterion is that one is part of the Anglican tradition, and not that one is in communion with +Canterbury. The fact that those in the Ordinariate have other doctrines than those in the CofE is also irrelevant, as this is equally true for those in the TAC. For them, the inability for women to get ordained is a doctrine.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

K-mann, all of that reflects changed rammed through at the beginning of this debacle, when the board knew they were leaving and decided to take it all with them.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Funny how there is not one mention of Jesus Christ in that article.

It's called faith in action.

Never heard of the idea before?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Well, there we are then. Whatever the Ordinariate may be, it is surely not the promotion of Catholicism within the Church of England . It seemes to be more about the preservation of "Anglican patrimony" within the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever it's about, the Ordinariate doesn't promote anything within the Church of England, so if that remains the established point of the charity, the charity should not have been giving money to the Ordinariate.
If we poke around on the CBS website, we find a page with a Q&A document (pdf file from July 2011), from which we lern that CBS is “[not] a Church of England charity,” that “CBS is subject to neither Rome nor Canterbury” and that they have members “outside the Church of England.” This includes continuing anglican bodies, like the TAC. It seems to me, then, that the criterion is that one is part of the Anglican tradition, and not that one is in communion with +Canterbury. The fact that those in the Ordinariate have other doctrines than those in the CofE is also irrelevant, as this is equally true for those in the TAC. For them, the inability for women to get ordained is a doctrine.

A charity is not a sort of worthy club. It is set up to fulfill its objects, as defined by those objects, not the interests of its members. The people who gave to it are entitled to assume, even after they are dead, that their money will be used for those purposes, and those only.

The role of the members is that they are supposed to be people who join it because they are committed to the same objects. Even if all the members were Roman Catholic, that would have no bearing on what the charity was set up to do or what was a legitimate way to spend the charities funds.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Stranger:

quote:

Maybe so, but before it happened it was possible to envisage some sort of 'convalidation' or 'reception' of Anglican Orders that might be acceptable.

Lol; which part of 'utterly null and void' hinted to you that there would even be a sherry reception for those in Anglican orders?!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

From Enoch:

"A charity is not a sort of worthy club. It is set up to fulfill its objects, as defined by those objects, not the interests of its members. The people who gave to it are entitled to assume, even after they are dead, that their money will be used for those purposes, and those only."

Exactly. English Equity law has strayed into strange paths over the last 25 years or so, but I can't imagine that there has been that much change to the law of charities. Those who donate are entitled to have their donation used for the rated purposes of the charity. If those purposes included the support of aged, indigent or ill Roman Catholic clergy or their dependents, then the giving of the money would have been valid. But it seems pretty clear that tho was not one of the stated purposes of the charity, and the gift was clearly beyond the powers of the trustees.

Churches are in no different a position to any other charity. Indeed, the courts here have intervened in matters of liturgy basing their decisions on charity law: see Wylde v. Attorney-General (N.S.W.) (ex rel. Ashelford) [1948] HCA 39; (1948) 78 CLR 224. The Bishop of Bathurst had authorised use of a liturgy for the Eucharist other than that in the BCP. Rubrics in this alternative liturgy allowed for making a sign of the cross at the Absolution and Benediction, and for the ringing of a Sanctus bell at the Consecration. Not exactly major issues, one may think, and all that the Bishop did was to authorise the use of the service, not make it mandatory. Roper J held that the question was to be decided in accordance with the principles of public charity law and granted injunctions. An appeal to the High Court was by majority dismissed, but one judge held that the whole procedure was to him distasteful.

I can see no reason why the affairs of the CBS could be viewed in any light other than of a charity and had the matter gone to litigation, it's hard to see how the gift would have been upheld.

As for the rhetorical questions of rugbyplayingpriest, surely the obligation to maintain those clergy who made the change is now that of the church into which they were received?

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

As for the rhetorical questions of rugbyplayingpriest, surely the obligation to maintain those clergy who made the change is now that of the church into which they were received?

I am puzzled by why there's a problem.

Surely the ordinariate model is one of congregations and their pastors moving as groups to the RC church, and not one of individual clerical submission? In the C of E congregations pay a parish share which more or less covers clergy costs incl pension costs, plus keep up what is usually a very costly building. In the RC church they are, I understand, sharing premises with a rather larger congregation, so that's a big saving (and I guess a welcome little extra for the "hosts"). Surely there ought to be lots of spare cash sloshing around?

What have I missed? [Biased]

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Not in England, it's not. Because CofE and CinW parishes have, historically, been exempt from filing charitable accounts with the Charity Commission, it's almost impossible to know, but I'd be staggered if more than a handful of parishes had an endowment of that size.

Not exempt (the exempt charities were scheduled in the various acts) but excepted. It came to the same thing.

Of course one reason why you are right is that many of the historic parochial endowments (glebe land) were centralised [=snaffled] and are held and run by the diocese, the income being used collectively -- in our diocese as an offset to the clergy cost calculation. It's also the case that the Charity Commission made many schemes to separate off parochial charities from the PCC funds, and rationalise they way they are run.

I think a PCC with endowment funds (in strict sense) of 250k would be envied by the neighbours.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Are there many cases where a priest and the whole or most of the congregation have moved? I understood that few lay people were swimming (and not that many clergy either).

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Are there many cases where a priest and the whole or most of the congregation have moved? I understood that few lay people were swimming (and not that many clergy either).

About half our congregation moved at the same time as the priest. But the original congregation was relatively small anyway.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Funny how there is not one mention of Jesus Christ in that article.
It's called faith in action. Never heard of the idea before?

Faith in action? Certainly have. Existentialism, isn't it? [Biased]

Of course, you mean faith put into action, but faith in what? The be-all-and-end-all of the Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man.

I rather fancy that was what CL was getting at.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

There are a couple of parishes in this Diocese where the priest and a fair number of the congregation went to the Ordinariate. Both now have new priests-in-charge (well, one of them is due later this year - at rugbyplayingpriest's former parish.....) and are very much alive and well. Indeed, relations with the Diocese and its Bishop seem to have been much improved.

One, in fact, reports increased weekday attendance at Mass....though I expect both parishes will build up their Sunday congregations as well as time goes by.

The departure to Rome of the malcontents (sorry, but that's what they seem to me to be in many cases) clears the air, and gives the Holy Spirit a chance to continue Her work in these parishes, without the negative attitude and mudslinging that I (personally) have experienced from those who think the poor old C of E is pants filled with poo.......

YMMV, but the Ordinariate in the UK looks to me to be a transient thing. As the diehards die, so will it be assimilated (resistance is futile) into our sister Church of Rome.

Ian J.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gee D:
I am puzzled by why there's a problem.

Surely the ordinariate model is one of congregations and their pastors moving as groups to the RC church, and not one of individual clerical submission? In the C of E congregations pay a parish share which more or less covers clergy costs incl pension costs, plus keep up what is usually a very costly building. In the RC church they are, I understand, sharing premises with a rather larger congregation, so that's a big saving (and I guess a welcome little extra for the "hosts"). Surely there ought to be lots of spare cash sloshing around?

What have I missed?

Many, if not most of the spiky-ordinariate-minded parishes (or ex-such) from our diocesse are heavily funded by the Evangelicals as they rarely if ever have enough giving to even begin to cover their quota. One parish I know of has giving somewhere between £1-2 per head per week. Certainly not enough to pay their part-time vicar's stipend.

[ed: s is too close to c on my keyboard for my brain sometimes]

[ 01. July 2012, 13:30: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Stranger:

quote:

Maybe so, but before it happened it was possible to envisage some sort of 'convalidation' or 'reception' of Anglican Orders that might be acceptable.
Lol; which part of 'utterly null and void' hinted to you that there would even be a sherry reception for those in Anglican orders?!

ah one does hate to spend time contesting this now quite-dead beast (dinohippus?) on a sunny day, the Octave of Saint John the Baptist, but there were (in the tortoise-like way of such things) initial papers being written to provide folks with discussion points on this. When the archbishops of Canterbury & York brought in the Dutch touch, it was done using documentation and declarations à la Tridentine practice for the purpose of quenching the utterly null etc. The Vatican home industry of preparing opinions and analyses was furiously churning out their stuff in the 1970s during Paul VI's day when OWP began to happen and, with the pontificate of J2P2, that train went into a siding where it has been ever since.

So it was not science fiction and in the unlikely event of OWP never having had transpired, would have been up for serious discussion. But after the Philadelphia Five, it entered into the realms of alternate history.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Not exempt (the exempt charities were scheduled in the various acts) but excepted. It came to the same thing.

At the risk of being as pedantic as you: I did not say they were "Exempt Charities" but that they were exempt from filing accounts with the Charity Commission. I am well aware of the difference been "excepted" and "exempt" and the changes the 2006 Charities Act made to their regulation.

quote:
Of course one reason why you are right is that many of the historic parochial endowments (glebe land) were centralised [=snaffled] and are held and run by the diocese, the income being used collectively -- in our diocese as an offset to the clergy cost calculation. It's also the case that the Charity Commission made many schemes to separate off parochial charities from the PCC funds, and rationalise they way they are run.

Yes, whilst that's true, with something approaching 14,000 parishes, even if you added back those funds, I suspect few would have even approached levels of endowment of £2m. I often spend an hour or two looking at volumes of the Victoria County History. The entries by parish list the value of the living pre "snaffling" and, by reference to tables of monetary vales, very few would seem to have anything approaching the kind of sums that would today convert into that kind of money.

quote:
[I think a PCC with endowment funds (in strict sense) of 250k would be envied by the neighbours.

I'm sure you're right.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Funny how there is not one mention of Jesus Christ in that article.
It's called faith in action. Never heard of the idea before?
Faith in action? Certainly have. Existentialism, isn't it?

Of course, you mean faith put into action, but faith in what? The be-all-and-end-all of the Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man.

I rather fancy that was what CL was getting at.

Lord have mercy.

I commit you both to the patron saint of lost causes.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
2 million is not a lot.

AtB, Pyx_e

No? Give it to me then. I'd find a good use for it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Stranger:

quote:

Maybe so, but before it happened it was possible to envisage some sort of 'convalidation' or 'reception' of Anglican Orders that might be acceptable.
Lol; which part of 'utterly null and void' hinted to you that there would even be a sherry reception for those in Anglican orders?!

The hardest bit would have been converting from gin to scotch.

Posted by ardmacha (# 16499) on :

One of the real objects of the C.B.S. was to promote the traditional and apostolic custom and rule of fasting before holy Communion and to abolish (or try to) Evening Masses. When Pius XII allowed the Roman Catholics to do an extraordinary and not very "primitive" [the watchword of those liturgical days] about turn, so did the C.B.S., which quickly aped Rome. Apparently they asked the Rev.Prof.Trevor Jalland to come and speak or write to explain how something that could be an essential of practice could be abolished overnight. Does anyone know about this incident the the CBS history ?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Stranger:

quote:

Maybe so, but before it happened it was possible to envisage some sort of 'convalidation' or 'reception' of Anglican Orders that might be acceptable.
Lol; which part of 'utterly null and void' hinted to you that there would even be a sherry reception for those in Anglican orders?!
The hardest bit would have been converting from gin to scotch.

Irish, surely?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Irish, surely?

I was just about to say the same when you got in first. Switching from Gordons to Jamesons.

Reverting to the charitable objects point though, the CBS was originally set up to encourage members of the CofE to be more 'Catholic' in their approach to the Sacrament. It started in the 1860s, at a time when others had already solved that dilemma for themselves by going over. That option already existed and has existed throughout the society's existence.

Although I can see where their trustees were coming from when they made the controversial grant, if the goal was supposed to be to get Anglicans to be more catholic, funding those who had decided to give up the struggle seems to be more fundamentally contrary to its original purposes than at first sight appears even to those who were already suspicious of the grant.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Enoch, that presupposes that the only way to be in any sense "Anglican" is within communion with the Archbishop if Canterbury. Those in continuing churches would claim - with what justification I'm not qualified to judge - to be Anglican. By the same logic, surely members of the Ordinariates could claim the same. Furthermore, since the CC found that, "(t)he precise meaning of Anglican Tradition is unclear", the question would at least seem capable of being asked in more than a mischievous sense.

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :

The objects of the charity are limited to the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition.

I don't think the Roman Catholic church is in the Anglican Tradition.

The CBS is there for those who believe that the Church of England is part of the catholic church. The Ordinariate is there for those who think that it isn't.

And, as for disagreement, the Charity Commission is an independent and expert body which has decided the issue. The former trustees are neither independent nor expert. Their lawyers do not decide, they only advise, and their advice has been proved to be wrong. Absent an appeal, this is no longer a matter of opinion.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by badman:
The objects of the charity are limited to the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition.

I don't think the Roman Catholic church is in the Anglican Tradition.

Yes, Badman, but you don't get to make that call. It is at least arguable, as I said earlier, that the Ordinariate is precisely about maintaining some parts of the not easily defined notion of Anglican Tradition in communion with the rest of the Catholic Church.

quote:
The CBS is there for those who believe that the Church of England is part of the catholic church. The Ordinariate is there for those who think that it isn't.

So say you. That isn't what it's objects of the Charity say and neither is that what the Commission found.

quote:
And, as for disagreement, the Charity Commission is an independent and expert body which has decided the issue. The former trustees are neither independent nor expert. Their lawyers do not decide, they only advise, and their advice has been proved to be wrong. Absent an appeal, this is no longer a matter of opinion.

Have you actually read the Commission's decision?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by badman:
The objects of the charity are limited to the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition.

I don't think the Roman Catholic church is in the Anglican Tradition.
Yes, Badman, but you don't get to make that call. It is at least arguable, as I said earlier, that the Ordinariate is precisely about maintaining some parts of the not easily defined notion of Anglican Tradition in communion with the rest of the Catholic Church.

I'm going to ask a very ignorant question here. In what way is the "Anglican tradition" being preserved in the Ordinariate?

They use the RC calendar; many of those who have joined will have used Novus Ordo masses even before their conversion; I doubt many of the priests used traditional Anglican choir dress.

What is it, then, that the Ordinariate is preserving? BCP Evensong? Something I haven't thought of? I'm not in any way denigrating those who have joined, but I genuinely don't understand what it is the Ordinariate is preserving.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Ah, the slippery question of what constitutes "patrimony". Well there are a few Ordinariate members hereabouts who'll have to answer that question. I'm a teenage convert from Methodism, whose only exposure to Anglicanism - apart from at school - has been from this side of the Tiber.

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

My expectation is that we will see so-called Anglican Patrimony much better maintained within the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter than within the Ordinariate of OLW. US Episcopalians remained basically faithful to the BCP tradition (per our Scottish-based rite) and this was reflected in the Book of Divine Worship used in the US Anglican Use/Spoecial Pastoral Provision RC parishes. This tradition will be carried forth into the American Ordinariate. The situation is very different in England, where the advanced Anglo-Catholics/Anglo-Papalists adopted the Novus Ordo and spurned the BCP tradition.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Lietuvos puts it IMHO clearly. I must admit that I have always been puzzled that anglo-papalists were looking for an ordinariate, and I suspect that OLW is more of a social (I do not use the term pejoratively, but more of shared history and experience) grouping than a tradition-based one. The BCP-based ordinariates are also drawing from a number of non-Canterbury-related communities, which have been in ecclesiastical orbit for some years now. I am curious as to what the situation will look like in a quarter century from now (presuming that senile dementia has not taken me over by then, so that I will be able to examine it).

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

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
I'm going to ask a very ignorant question here. In what way is the "Anglican tradition" being preserved in the Ordinariate?

They use the RC calendar; many of those who have joined will have used Novus Ordo masses even before their conversion; I doubt many of the priests used traditional Anglican choir dress.

What is it, then, that the Ordinariate is preserving? BCP Evensong? Something I haven't thought of? I'm not in any way denigrating those who have joined, but I genuinely don't understand what it is the Ordinariate is preserving.

1.) They are not using the Catholic E&W Kalendar - they have had their own approved by Rome. It retains many Anglican bits + pieces, such as the Sundays after Trinity.

2.) They await their Ordinariate form of Mass being approved. They do have interim permission to use the Book of Divine Worship - but this is based on the USA BCP so is rather alien. It is being used in some Ordinariate groups (such as Portsmouth), but many more groups will I'm sure use the new approved rite in due course.

3.) The Offices are clearly very important, yes. Both daily and occasional. And not just the order of service, but also bits & pieces such as the use of (some, carefully selected) non-scriptural readings in the offices.

4.) If you are particularly interested in finding out what's the same and what's different I highly recommend joining a group for worship. Although difficult to describe on paper (arguably), there clearly are positive things that are being (re-)introduced into the mainstream of Catholicism.

I think, in this modern instantaneous age, one can easily forget just how slowly Rome has moved in the past - 18 months is but a blink of an eye. Maybe we can come back and discuss this in 30 years, rather than every 3 weeks? [Smile]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Isn't having married priests going to remain distinctive for some time?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
1.) They are not using the Catholic E&W Kalendar - they have had their own approved by Rome. It retains many Anglican bits + pieces, such as the Sundays after Trinity.

OK, that's useful knowledge, thanks. But presumably particularly Anglican celebrations (e.g. Charles, King and Martyr, or Edward King, Bishop of Lincoln) won't remain on the calendar?

quote:
2.) They await their Ordinariate form of Mass being approved. They do have interim permission to use the Book of Divine Worship - but this is based on the USA BCP so is rather alien. It is being used in some Ordinariate groups (such as Portsmouth), but many more groups will I'm sure use the new approved rite in due course.

So they are unlikely to use the mass of Paul VI, even if they used it before conversion? Interesting. What will the rite be based on? (Is this straying a bit close to Ecclesiantics? If so, I'll take it over there.)

quote:
4.) If you are particularly interested in finding out what's the same and what's different I highly recommend joining a group for worship. Although difficult to describe on paper (arguably), there clearly are positive things that are being (re-)introduced into the mainstream of Catholicism.

That's a very good idea; I shall endeavour to do so in the near future. There's no chance of my joining, but I'd like to understand the OLW folks a little better.

quote:
I think, in this modern instantaneous age, one can easily forget just how slowly Rome has moved in the past - 18 months is but a blink of an eye. Maybe we can come back and discuss this in 30 years, rather than every 3 weeks?

That's a very good point: no doubt things will develop organically. I know a lot of people are slightly sceptical, however, about the long-term viability of the Ordinariate: after the current generation has passed, will there be a successor generation? Or will people join the mainstream Catholic tradition?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Thanks to Man With a Stick, who provides some useful detail.

Basilica writes:

quote:
I know a lot of people are slightly sceptical, however, about the long-term viability of the Ordinariate: after the current generation has passed, will there be a successor generation? Or will people join the mainstream Catholic tradition?

I presume that they will continue, much as the quite small Italo-Albanese jurisdictions maintained Byzantine traditions in southern Italy for the past fifteen centuries. I suppose it's possible that the OLW folk may die out for lack of reproductive activities but they may attract a stream (or trickle, depending on your viewpoint) of converts. I know of one eastern Catholic jurisdiction in Canada which is likely to die out on account of its population assimilating to the mainstream RCs, but other jurisdictions are likely to continue for the imaginable future.

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by badman:
The objects of the charity are limited to the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition.

I don't think the Roman Catholic church is in the Anglican Tradition.
Yes, Badman, but you don't get to make that call. It is at least arguable, as I said earlier, that the Ordinariate is precisely about maintaining some parts of the not easily defined notion of Anglican Tradition in communion with the rest of the Catholic Church.

quote:
The CBS is there for those who believe that the Church of England is part of the catholic church. The Ordinariate is there for those who think that it isn't.
So say you. That isn't what it's objects of the Charity say and neither is that what the Commission found.

quote:
And, as for disagreement, the Charity Commission is an independent and expert body which has decided the issue. The former trustees are neither independent nor expert. Their lawyers do not decide, they only advise, and their advice has been proved to be wrong. Absent an appeal, this is no longer a matter of opinion.
Have you actually read the Commission's decision?

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

I'm hoping link works. It's an online version of the approved Ordinariate OLW Calendar.

I have very few details as to what the approved Mass will look like. As to which mass version will be used once it has been approved, I imagine the answer will be 'both' - with the balance different in each group.

Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on :

Does anyone know of a single Ordinariate priest who used Anglican liturgy before joining? I certainly don't.

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

If the Eucharistic rites contained in the Book of Divine Worship are rather unfamiliar to UK OLW folks, this is more to do with their previous non-use of the BCP-derived options in Common Worship as well as the CW modern language prayers than with the fact that the BDW is based on the American BCP. The Book of Divine Worship incorporates the Rite I Eucharistic order from the US 1979 BCP, with one of the RC eucharistic prayers being substituted for the usual BCP one (in practice, IME, this is usually the traditional Roman canon that gets used). The Rite I order is essentially a tweaked Cranmerian liturgy with aspects of the original 1549-Scottish order that has always been used in TEC as opposed to the 1552-1662 English order. Rite II is a streamlined modern language order that is similar to analogous options in CW.

I can't imagine that the eventual Anglican liturgies for use in the Ordinariates world-wide will be greatly different to the BDW. I would think only that there might be some tweaking of the traditional language texts away from the slightly modernised and Americanised 1979 BCP versions and toward the traditional versions maintained in CW and in older BCPs. Still, those won't be very familiar things to most OLW folk, whilst in the USA, all older Ordinariate people will be familiar with most of it, since these few bits of language had continued through the era of the (TEC) 1928 BCP, i.e. until the advent of the 1979 book and even longer (to the present) in the liturgies of many of the "continuing" traditionalist Anglican/Episcopalians.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hezekiah:
Does anyone know of a single Ordinariate priest who used Anglican liturgy before joining? I certainly don't. [/QUOTE

I realise you are referring to the UK situation, but in the USA they all used Anglican liturgy before joining the Ordinariate.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Hezekiah:
Does anyone know of a single Ordinariate priest who used Anglican liturgy before joining? I certainly don't.

Yes, several.

Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on :

Well, they're certainly a small minority.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Hezekiah:
Well, they're certainly a small minority.

A majority used 'Anglican liturgy'. In fact, now I think about it, all of them will have (weddings, for example).

Admittedly, a minority will have regularly used entirely Anglican liturgy in a eucharistic service.

However, a duly approved Anglican eucharistic liturgy will likely appeal to those of them whose reasoning for using parts of the Novus Ordo was due to perceived inadequacies in the eucharistic theology of the authorised Anglican rites at the time. Once this 'problem' has been ironed out by the CDF and the CDW, I think it will be embraced.

And anyway, in my opinion, I think they'll have to embrace it if they have a long-term distinctive personality within the Catholic mainstream.

Posted by ardmacha (# 16499) on :

I took up the idea of going to an Ordinariate service recently ; an ordination and found NO signs of any anglican spirit,pietas,patrimony, tradition except two anglican hymns. The service was very much like a modern RC Low church service: Bishop and assistants on a podium facing us (behind the Forward altar), Altar Girls, some good vestments,others foul, cassock albs,Handshake of peace. The spirit and atmosphere bore no resemblance to an Anglican one and,you know, I think they all loved it. It seems that the Ordinariate clergy were all Modern Roman Catholics in communion with the See of Canterbury. One was asked what DID they want to bring into the Roman church and there was a long pause and finally: Well we could have a sort of Evensong. The people seem fine,serious good people but not much of the old Anglican spirit. I wish I had stayed at the Solemn evening Mass at Westminster cathedral, at least that had integrity and realism.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I looked up "patrimony" in the dictionary and it showed a picture of a fig leaf.

Honestly was there ever a bigger crock of shit?

AtB, Pyx_e

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I looked up "patrimony" in the dictionary and it showed a picture of a fig leaf.

Honestly was there ever a bigger crock of shit?

AtB, Pyx_e

Gee whiz Pyx_e, those of us who continue in the Canterbury line deal with so many steaming crocks on a daily basis that it ill behooves us to point out the steaming crocks of others.

If any shipmate happens to be able to MW an Ordinariate service in Canada, the US, or Oz, we might all be in a better position to pontificate.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Gee whiz Pyx_e, those of us who continue in the Canterbury line deal with so many steaming crocks on a daily basis that it ill behooves us to point out the steaming crocks of others.

Yeah but I was taught a vital difference.

AtB, Pyx_e

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

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

If any shipmate happens to be able to MW an Ordinariate service in Canada, the US, or Oz, we might all be in a better position to pontificate.

I can only report second hand that a recent ordination in Philadelphia was a NO mass with some "Anglican" accretions - Burgess Plainsong minor propers and several traditional "Anglican hymns".

Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on :

What makes a hymn part of Anglican patrimony? Any Catholic can use hymns written by Anglicans if they wish. Hymns have never been allocated by denomination.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

If any shipmate happens to be able to MW an Ordinariate service in Canada, the US, or Oz, we might all be in a better position to pontificate.
I can only report second hand that a recent ordination in Philadelphia was a NO mass with some "Anglican" accretions - Burgess Plainsong minor propers and several traditional "Anglican hymns".

That might perhaps not be surprising for an ordination but isn't the kind of eucharistic liturgy the Anglican Use RC parishes have been doing from the BDW, especially in Texas where all their flagship parishes are and which will presumably all be joining up with the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, if they haven't yet done so (alternatively, AIUI they can opt to remain personal parishes within their own geographical dioceses).

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hezekiah:
What makes a hymn part of Anglican patrimony? Any Catholic can use hymns written by Anglicans if they wish. Hymns have never been allocated by denomination.

Nothing. Singing them is the Anglican patrimony bit.

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

I realise that I have been pushing out into Ecclesiantical territory, but I'm going to push the envelope just a bit further and post this video of an Anglican Use RC Eucharist according to the liturgy of the Book of Divine Worship. It's just an illustration of North American Roman Catholics maintaining Anglican liturgical patrimony. The setting of the Kyrie, for non-North Americans, is by Healey Willan and is part of the most beloved traditional Communion Service used in TEC.

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

Sorry about the mistaken post at 12.48 - it was not intended to go out in anything like that form. Revised version below:

quote:

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
__________________________________________________
(Badman)

The CBS is there for those who believe that the Church of England is part of the catholic church. The Ordinariate is there for those who think that it isn't.
__________________________________________________

So say you. That isn't what it's objects of the Charity say and neither is that what the Commission found.
__________________________________________________

Badman’s summary is neat and accurate. The objects of the charity did not need to spell out the fact that it was and always had been a Church of England charity. The rules of membership, until the Constitution was changed in 2010 to allow the admission of members of the (as yet unformed) Ordinariate, required members to be members of the Church of England or of a church in full communion therewith (1999 Constitution Rule 5.2: ‘Membership of the Confraternity shall be open to communicant members of the Church of England and Churches in full communion with the Church of England who also support the Objects, accept the catholic faith and observe the practices of the catholic religion.’)

What the Charity Commission found was that the decision to pay £1 million to the Ordinariate was invalid because the majority of the trustees had a (financial) personal interest in the decision; and that it was also in breach of the charity’s governing document.

As for the use made by the CBS of its income, it is a good deal more than merely providing vessels and vestments to Anglo-Catholic parishes as appears to have been suggested. The income is fully utilised, and is needed for the work of the Confraternity. The Trustees’ Annual Reports for the past five years or more have set out some of its activities:

“ln furtherance of its objects the Confraternity organises services and meetings at national, District and local Ward level. lt publishes a Manual of devotions for public and private use by Associates. The Quarterly contains Eucharistic teaching and also contains lntercessions to help Associates fulfil the second Object (prayer for one another at the Eucharist). lt encourages adherence to the third Object (careful preparation for and reception of Holy Communion, including the Eucharistic fast), by teaching through the Manual and Quarterly and by example in its own services. lt gives grants of vessels and vestments to parishes at home and abroad for the reverent celebration and Reservation of the Eucharist. lt 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” (Report for year ending 31 January 2011 - note the last five words, signed by Fr Christopher Lindlar, then Secretary-General of the CBS, at a time when he was already, I think, a member of the Ordinariate)).

It does not seem to me that there can be any doubt that the decision of the Charity Commission was correct, and that the Ordinariate was right to return the £1 million with interest.

[ 02. July 2012, 15:08: Message edited by: egg ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Gee whiz Pyx_e, those of us who continue in the Canterbury line deal with so many steaming crocks on a daily basis that it ill behooves us to point out the steaming crocks of others.
Yeah but I was taught a vital difference.

AtB, Pyx_e

Not to beat this topic further, but I claim supremacy in this topic on the grounds of having prepared correspondence, briefings, and speaking notes for five Liberal and seven Conservative ministers, as well as for having analyzed decades of messaging, texts, and synodical documents on a certain dead horse. I know a crock when I see one.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hezekiah:
Does anyone know of a single Ordinariate priest who used Anglican liturgy before joining? I certainly don't.

I know two.They both used Common Worship rite A

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by badman:
The objects of the charity are limited to the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition.

And how do you determine what constitutes ‘the Anglican Tradition’? Is it ‘being in communion with +Canterbury’? Or ‘sharing the same doctrines?’ If it’s eiter of those, then the CBS couldn’t ever give anything to continuing anglican churches, since they are not in communion with +Canterbury, and since they clearly have differences in doctrine, including views on the ordination of women.

quote:
Originally posted by badman:
I don't think the Roman Catholic church is in the Anglican Tradition.

But why, exactly? What makes it different from, say, the TAC? The TAC has other doctrines than the CofE. It doesn’t matter if you, or the CofE, calls it an adiaphoron, since they don’t. The question is what constitutes ‘the Anglican tradition.’

quote:
Originally posted by badman:
The CBS is there for those who believe that the Church of England is part of the catholic church. The Ordinariate is there for those who think that it isn't.

So you would then exclude any continuing anglican body? Many of them doesn’t believe that the CofE is part of the catholic church.

quote:
Originally posted by badman:
And, as for disagreement, the Charity Commission is an independent and expert body which has decided the issue. The former trustees are neither independent nor expert. Their lawyers do not decide, they only advise, and their advice has been proved to be wrong. Absent an appeal, this is no longer a matter of opinion.

Yes, but it seems that the catholicity or possible non-anglicanicity of the Ordinariate had nothing to do with that decision. It seems more as case of a conflict of interest.

And I can also note that the CBS, as I’ve been told, has members in the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden.

Posted by ardmacha (# 16499) on :

I decided to go to an Ordinariate service. I was very disappointed: no sign of any Anglican style,spirit,vesture - two fine old Anglican hymns - apart from that, just an ordinary Modern RC service, the Sacred ministers grinning behind an altar table, altar girls, cassock albs. I cannot see what Anglican Patrimony has been brought. Most of the Ordinariate people seem happy with the New Mass, Divine Office, hand shakes of peace. I should have stuck with the Solemn evening Mass at Westminster Cathedral,at least that seemed real and has integrity.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ardmacha:
I decided to go to an Ordinariate service. I was very disappointed: no sign of any Anglican style,spirit,vesture - two fine old Anglican hymns - apart from that, just an ordinary Modern RC service, the Sacred ministers grinning behind an altar table, altar girls, cassock albs. I cannot see what Anglican Patrimony has been brought. Most of the Ordinariate people seem happy with the New Mass, Divine Office, hand shakes of peace. I should have stuck with the Solemn evening Mass at Westminster Cathedral,at least that seemed real and has integrity.

I'm sorry to hear it. I rather hoped that the RCC would gain a certain innovative gracefulness and lovely stuffiness in some of their liturgy. Ah, well.

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

If any shipmate happens to be able to MW an Ordinariate service in Canada, the US, or Oz, we might all be in a better position to pontificate.
I can only report second hand that a recent ordination in Philadelphia was a NO mass with some "Anglican" accretions - Burgess Plainsong minor propers and several traditional "Anglican hymns".

It was desired in this case to have a more distinctive Ordinariate (B.D.W.) liturgy, but prohibited by the ordaining bishop. I think if you attended a regular Sunday service you'd find much more of the Anglican Patrimony.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

So I wrote to Websters and asked them to add to the "fig leaf" entry.

I suggested: Patrimony, including some minor liturgical changes to justify wondering off with £1,000,000.

I will let you know if they reply.

AtB, Pyx_e, who grew out of obssesing about the liturgy or deluding myself that the vast majority of the unchurched gave a monkies about who wrote the damn hymn by the age of 12.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

If any shipmate happens to be able to MW an Ordinariate service in Canada, the US, or Oz, we might all be in a better position to pontificate.
I can only report second hand that a recent ordination in Philadelphia was a NO mass with some "Anglican" accretions - Burgess Plainsong minor propers and several traditional "Anglican hymns".
It was desired in this case to have a more distinctive Ordinariate (B.D.W.) liturgy, but prohibited by the ordaining bishop. I think if you attended a regular Sunday service you'd find much more of the Anglican Patrimony.

I had myself thought of the more benign explanation that an ordaining RC bishop wouldn't be familiar with the BDW liturgy and hence would want to use the standard NO liturgy. It's truly dismaying if the bishop, in a more negative sense, actually prohibited the use of the BDW against the wishes of the congregation in the ordination mass.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ardmacha:
I decided to go to an Ordinariate service. I was very disappointed: no sign of any Anglican style,spirit,vesture - two fine old Anglican hymns - apart from that, just an ordinary Modern RC service, the Sacred ministers grinning behind an altar table, altar girls, cassock albs. I cannot see what Anglican Patrimony has been brought. Most of the Ordinariate people seem happy with the New Mass, Divine Office, hand shakes of peace. I should have stuck with the Solemn evening Mass at Westminster Cathedral,at least that seemed real and has integrity.

I was asked to go to an Ordinariate service. It was a first Mass in Oxford. It was markedly distinct from modern Catholic practice. It was celebrated ad orientem in English, using the new translation of the Roman Missal, with beautiful choral music and hymns I have rarely heard in the Catholic Church. The preaching was of an astonishingly high standard and much longer than usual in the Catholic Church. It lasted more than an hour.

I was asked to go to another Ordinariate service. It was a Mass celebrated by the Ordinary. It, too, was markedly distinct from modern Catholic practice. It, too, was celebrated ad orientem in English, but this time using the Book of Divine Worship. I was struck by how much of the BCP Communion Service from my schooldays there appeared to be. The music and hymnody was distinctively Anglican (Stanford, Merbecke, Ken, Keble and John Mason Neale) and sung/performed to a very high standard) and the Ordinary preached - in a style and at a length that Catholic bishops would never dare.

Mileage varies, I guess.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
That might perhaps not be surprising for an ordination but isn't the kind of eucharistic liturgy the Anglican Use RC parishes have been doing from the BDW, especially in Texas where all their flagship parishes are and which will presumably all be joining up with the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, if they haven't yet done so (alternatively, AIUI they can opt to remain personal parishes within their own geographical dioceses).

I gather O L of the Atonement will not be going the Ordinariate but will remain and Anglican Use parish - does that make any sense to anyone? To me it adds to the confusion.

Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
does that make any sense to anyone? To me it adds to the confusion.

It makes sense if they do not wish to be subject to the Ordinary, I should have thought.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Trisagion:

quote:
I was asked to go to an Ordinariate service. It was a first Mass in Oxford. It was markedly distinct from modern Catholic practice. It was celebrated ad orientem in English, using the new translation of the Roman Missal, with beautiful choral music and hymns I have rarely heard in the Catholic Church. The preaching was of an astonishingly high standard and much longer than usual in the Catholic Church. It lasted more than an hour.

The sermon? [Eek!]

Or the Mass? [Smile]

I'm glad to hear your report. I honestly thought the Ordinariate was an excellent idea, where Anglican Christians who were called to join the Roman Catholic Church would have something of special value to bring to the table. As long as the theology is in line with their new church and they have approval from their bishop, I think renewed attention to a more formal beauty in liturgy is a real blessing to the RCC.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

My bad [Frown]

. The Mass.

Posted by ardmacha (# 16499) on :

You have had a fortunate experience,Trisagion. but then the Oxford Oratory provides a very and unusually high standard of liturgical worship,as do the other English Oratories. Sadly, they are exception and not the rule. Many English Catholics hope/have hoped that the Ordinariate will improve the style of worship in England.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

For the record, neither Mass was at the Oxford Oratory.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
My bad . The Mass.

Happy for the correction - I had thought the same thing!

Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

If any shipmate happens to be able to MW an Ordinariate service in Canada, the US, or Oz, we might all be in a better position to pontificate.
I can only report second hand that a recent ordination in Philadelphia was a NO mass with some "Anglican" accretions - Burgess Plainsong minor propers and several traditional "Anglican hymns".
It was desired in this case to have a more distinctive Ordinariate (B.D.W.) liturgy, but prohibited by the ordaining bishop. I think if you attended a regular Sunday service you'd find much more of the Anglican Patrimony.
I had myself thought of the more benign explanation that an ordaining RC bishop wouldn't be familiar with the BDW liturgy and hence would want to use the standard NO liturgy. It's truly dismaying if the bishop, in a more negative sense, actually prohibited the use of the BDW against the wishes of the congregation in the ordination mass.

Yes. It is sad,hopefully such things won't occur in the future. This here is the usual order of worship. On a similar note, this isn't the Book of Divine Worship, but there is also This Video of Mount Calvary church, Baltimore.

Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ardmacha:
You have had a fortunate experience,Trisagion. but then the Oxford Oratory provides a very and unusually high standard of liturgical worship,as do the other English Oratories.

No longer so the Birmingham Oratory, I regret to say. Not since they sacked all the competent staff.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
That might perhaps not be surprising for an ordination but isn't the kind of eucharistic liturgy the Anglican Use RC parishes have been doing from the BDW, especially in Texas where all their flagship parishes are and which will presumably all be joining up with the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, if they haven't yet done so (alternatively, AIUI they can opt to remain personal parishes within their own geographical dioceses).
I gather O L of the Atonement will not be going the Ordinariate but will remain and Anglican Use parish - does that make any sense to anyone? To me it adds to the confusion.

I believe the issue with OLA is that the majority of the congregation is cradle RC of non-Anglican background thus not eligible (in the ordinary course of events) under the terms of AC to join the Ordinariate. I don't believe the matter is dead but certainly it has been kicked into the long grass for the foreseeable future.

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

quote:
Originally posted by St.Silas the carter:
Yes. It is sad,hopefully such things won't occur in the future. This here is the usual order of worship.

Yes but hardly an authorised version - it will be interesting to see what is eventually set forth.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by St.Silas the carter:
Yes. It is sad,hopefully such things won't occur in the future. This here is the usual order of worship.
Yes but hardly an authorised version - it will be interesting to see what is eventually set forth.

Well, it't the BDW Rite I Eucharistic order authorised for the Anglican Use/Special Pastoral Provision in N. America. And hasn't it been authorised for interim use by Ordinariate parishes until a definitive Ordinariate liturgy is formulated? The only thing I don't think is strictly part of the BDW tradition is the use of Latin outside choral settings of the Mass Ordinary.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
I'm hoping link works. It's an online version of the approved Ordinariate OLW Calendar.

I have very few details as to what the approved Mass will look like. As to which mass version will be used once it has been approved, I imagine the answer will be 'both' - with the balance different in each group.

I've probably got the wrong end of the stick. But what is the status and source of the Morning and Evening Prayer that are linked on from this page? They bear little resemblance either to BCP Matins or Evensong or CW daily prayer.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But what is the status and source of the Morning and Evening Prayer that are linked on from this page? They bear little resemblance either to BCP Matins or Evensong or CW daily prayer.

Looks fairly similar to Common Worship to me. But even more of course to the (post Vatican 2) RC Divine Office.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
I'm hoping link works. It's an online version of the approved Ordinariate OLW Calendar.

I have very few details as to what the approved Mass will look like. As to which mass version will be used once it has been approved, I imagine the answer will be 'both' - with the balance different in each group.
I've probably got the wrong end of the stick. But what is the status and source of the Morning and Evening Prayer that are linked on from this page? They bear little resemblance either to BCP Matins or Evensong or CW daily prayer.

Nowt to do with the Ordinariate at all, I think. Universalis have kindly put up the Ordinariate Calendar - but I think those are their general links to Morning and Evening prayer templates (with the specific readings etc inserted).

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

Again, the daily offices in the BDW are essentially the American versions of the BCP
Offices.

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by St.Silas the carter:
Yes. It is sad,hopefully such things won't occur in the future. This here is the usual order of worship.
Yes but hardly an authorised version - it will be interesting to see what is eventually set forth.

As far as I can tell, this is Rite I from the B.D.W., and so entirely authorized for the Ordinariate. What modifications do you notice?

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

Speaking of the liturgical aspects of the Ordinariate(s), the first common texts have been promulgated by Rome; the Order for Funerals and the Order for Marriage. I've started a thread in Ecclesiantics: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=007536

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Law will only ever reflect the legalities of a situation and does not sort right from wrong. I felt a split was reasonable- 50/50 is what would happen in a divorce.

Nevertheless I can see why some are pleased that a legal process went their way, and do not blame them for feeling happy. Well done! But... and it is HUGE...

I am perplexed at the attitude of many I thought were friends. People who once claimed to seek unity with Rome. Who you might imagine, would have wanted to see the Ordinariate flourish, if only as an insurance policy! But instead we had that vile Facebook page which, if I was still an Anglican, would shame me very, very deeply. It was frankly awful.

According to many observers, and according to the Charity Commission, the Odinariate literally tried to steal a million pounds from the Anglican Church.

And there is a difference between the way you treat people you have disagreements with who you think are honest, and people who you disagree with who steal a million pounds. That peoples attitudes to you changed after your group stole a million pounds doesn't mean they've changed. It means they object to you stealing a million pounds. And they find the idea of people they were once friends with stealing a million pounds to shame them far more than any facebook postings ever could.

Hope that helped (I don't have a dog in the fight).

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
According to many observers, and according to the Charity Commission, the Odinariate literally tried to steal a million pounds from the Anglican Church.

Not up to your usually scrupulous standards of accuracy this, Justinian. The Charity Commission didn't find anything "literally" of the sort. The CBS is not the Anglican Church, nor anything like it. The Commission found that an unquorate trustees' meeting resolved to do something the commission doubt they have the power to do even if quorate and that a number of trustees were conflicted and should not have participated in the decision.

quote:
Hope that helped (I don't have a dog in the fight).

Just as well for the dog.

BTW, I know it was a typo, but I really like the idea of an Odinariate. A new canonical structure to bring Norse pagans into the full communion of the Catholic Church.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
According to many observers, and according to the Charity Commission, the Odinariate literally tried to steal a million pounds from the Anglican Church.
Not up to your usually scrupulous standards of accuracy this, Justinian. The Charity Commission didn't find anything "literally" of the sort. The CBS is not the Anglican Church, nor anything like it. The Commission found that an unquorate trustees' meeting resolved to do something the commission doubt they have the power to do even if quorate and that a number of trustees were conflicted and should not have participated in the decision.

I was overspeaking there, sorry and stupidly I missed out the word almost before literally. Trying to make clear to rugbyplayingpriest why there was such a fall out. And certainly shouldn't have blamed the whole Ordinariate for the

quote:
BTW, I know it was a typo, but I really like the idea of an Odinariate. A new canonical structure to bring Norse pagans into the full communion of the Catholic Church.

... I'll have to try that on my Norse pagan friends. Although I'm sorry to say there's more chance of me moving into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church than there is them. Not that they are necessarily in what amounts to communion with all other Norse Reconstructionists; there's a big argument in the community about how to treat Loki - pre-Christian takes or post-Christian takes (not that this is relevant).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

To seek to achieve the reconciliation of followers not of the Dove that returned to the Ark, but of the Raven that did not? Or thanksgiving to them for feeding Elijah in the wilderness?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0