‘Is Christ divided?’ (1 Cor 1:13) – But then don’t bother looking for the Name of Christ in this post, for you’ll not find it. How it saddens the heart to see a brother priest contemplating (‘offer ideas’ about) further division in an already uncertain and difficult time, instead of working for and pushing towards unity with all that lies within (Eph 4:13).
While in the TAC, there are clearly two ‘groupings’: Those who are Ordinariate bound, or who are waiting to become members of the Roman Catholic Church, and the remaining Anglicans – members of the TAC who are left to continue with the worship of God, the proclamation of His Word, to pray, to love and help one another, and to spread the Gospel while building the Church – and this sadly without the former ‘grouping’.
To the above, Fr Anthony Chadwick lamentably now adds a third ‘grouping’, a so-called ‘pro-Catholic’ group. Its affiliates are identified as the incumbent Primate ‘Archbishop Hepworth as Bishop of Australia and perhaps most of his present clergy’, ‘Bishop Botterill and his group in Canada’, two or three English priests’ and ‘the Torres Strait group (unless Bishop Elliott makes them an offer they can’t refuse), maybe twenty or so American priests and a couple of bishops and perhaps a couple of Indian bishops if they don’t agree with Archbishop Prakash’. The tone is clear. And the ‘we’, one must assume, includes the author of the post, Fr Anthony.
Now what I fail to understand is why this further division? It is unwarranted with the view or goal being unity in the Body of Christ. While Fr Anthony would have us believe that the ‘future of the TAC depends on whether the “sedevacantist-conclavist” continuing Anglican model or the “pro-Catholic” model will be adopted’, the Affirmation of St Louis, to which the TAC subscribes, clearly states that we ‘continue in the Catholic Faith’. That has not changed (at least not that I know of).
We have the TAC and we have the Ordinariate. Each one of us, of free will and conscience, chooses one or the other. The problem is that the Ordinariate will not have all of those who wished to be a part of it – or at least, not on the level of expectation they held. May I be as bold as to suggest that this is where Fr Anthony’s ‘third grouping’ fits? Exactly. Men with impediments or who (for whatever reason), cannot be part of an Ordinariate (like that there are no Ordinariates on offer). So instead, they now turn around and ask: ‘Is there anything of the TAC worth saving?’
From the comments already coming in, you’ll see that it is actually schism that is being planned. Further division. Suggesting PNCC/NCC oversight while the TAC has competent, godly Bishops who can and are more than willing to provide Episcopal oversight? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves! And yet these are the same said individuals who have the gall to go around frightening others with the use of anarchist words like ‘coup d’etats’, when all those TAC Bishops who thus far have had the courage to speak up, have done so in order to protect the integrity of the TAC and of her members who are not Ordinariate bound?
Which brings me to another point: Playing the victim card. It is not the fault of the continuing TAC that not all those who indicated that they wanted to go to the Ordinariate cannot (again, I emphasise, for whatever reason that may be). But your willingness (indicated in writing to Rome) to go, should be amended, and asking you to indicate (in writing) your intention of now not going and/or staying in the TAC is not wrong. The TAC has every right (just like the Roman Catholic Church exacts) to demand allegiance and loyalty from its Clergy. And I have yet to hear of any such request to continue functioning as a TAC Clergy being rejected all because an individual felt at some point that the Ordinariate was going to be home. Reconciliation above all must be the goal. That is the Christian way. Every proactive step towards the Ordinariate was done with little consideration of those who would be left behind. Pro-dioceses established at will. There Bishop Mercer is gone without as much as a goodbye. So stop perpetuating this view. You are not victims. There is no ‘enemy’, there is no ‘fire and flames’ and ‘bloody nose dripping on the carpet’. Deborah Gyapong, I’m looking at you. I can tell you that I have had some of the most nasty comments from Ordinariate ‘pro-Catholic model’ persons on this blog. Even though they are filtered off by the comments moderator, I can tell you that they still make for shocking reading.
What we need now, most, is peace and unity. Put all this talk of division away and go before the altar, which is our common bond of charity in anticipation of eternal life, and seek unity. Sacrifice self. It is not about what we want, or what we can get out of it. It’s about Jesus. Bickering, gossiping and disunity amongst Christians is a sin. I simply cannot believe that joining hands in the love of God is something too hard to be asked for? Please.
‘And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them.’ (Rom 16:17)
‘Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!’ (Psalm 133:1)
‘They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.’ (Acts 2:42)
Not every step towards the Ordinariate was taken, or not every priest or prelate took such step, without or with only little consideration for those who would be left behind. There are men of goodwill in both camps. But I will agree that only lip service was paid to the ‘staying behind’ group at the top while the ‘official’ policy was ‘we’re all off to the Ordinariate, and if Synod resolves in favour you must agree’. Of course, it all could have been handled so much better if there’d been a realistic appreciation of the Apostolic Constitution from the outset. And all that would have taken was reading the thing and taking the plain meaning of the words. Then at least we all could have agreed as to what was offered, even though we might have come to disagree as to what to do about it.
Wow, what did I miss??? Let me remind you and others, that at the HOB in Portsmouth…”ALL” the Bishops signed the Catechism on the Altar, during the Mass..I really thought that meant, that we were in agreement of the contents in the Catechism and that by signing our names on the Altar, that we were affirming, before our awesome Lord, that this is what we believe….”That Simple,,,,” Now , we know ,some have changed their direction and I quess, they can erase their names and say now ,that they do not not believe the dogmas/doctrines as outlined in the Catechism….But, that is not what bothers most of us…It is the mind-set of those who promote themselves as” Holier than Thou”….and our way is the only way ..Yes, each so called “grouping” is guilty..in some way or the other…But, there is NO excuse for finger pointing at this time,,,It is demaning and anti-Gospel….
For those who wish to adhere to the teachings as set out in the Catechism and to seek unity with the See of Rome, why not just wish them, “God Speed” and let them go in peace, and those who have changed their minds, regarding the Dogmatic teachings as outlined in the Cathecism, let them also go in peace….
I no doubt, must ask foregiveness if I have contributed in anyway to this unchristian behavior. I also do not share my thoughts on line very often,, for a very good reason and that I learned years ago, that whatever one says, it can and will be taken out of context and the replys are at times lined with venom, from the enemy….But, come on now.. we are wasting so much time of this sort of stuff, that the important tasks of our ministries are suffering..
Just my opinion, and for those who truly cannot wait to criticize, please do not waste your time.. I do not plan to respond….Can we not , just pray for one another, at least, once in a while?….
In “HIS” love….PAX + Lou Campese
God bless you Bishop Campese, as an RC priest I will remember you in my prayers and at the altar looking forward to the day we are as one in unity.
With all respect, I’d have expected a more pastorally sensitive comment from a highly-regarded TAC bishop. I expect there were many bishops who signed on the documents in Portsmouth thinking they were petitioning for a ‘Church in communion with the Holy See’, or ‘United but not Absorbed’–that is, for exactly the kind of corporate recognition of the TAC that Abp Hepworth appeared to be pretending we were getting when, for example, he proposed to the Australian National Synod in 2010 motions for the formation of a committee to choose the Ordinary and the name for the Australian Ordinariate. As I’ve said in my earlier comment, if the exact nature of the offer had been appreciated at the time of its publication in 2009–and now I add to that ‘by Abp Hepworth’–Abp Hepworth may well have used his formidable powers of persuasion to get more people on side.
If only he’d said at the time–well, the announcement may come as a disappointment to many. it would appear that the TAC is not special, all our efforts to preserve sacramental validity count for nought, but it’s likely to be the best offer we’ll get for 450 years and, since the limb of the Affirmation of St Louis that provided for maintenance of relations with faithful portions of the Canterbury Communion has pretty much dropped off as a result of the dropping of of faithful portions of the Canterbury Communion, we have to ask ourselves whether we can continue with an ecclesiology of isolation or whether to raise the white flag, eat humble pie and be grateful for whatever concessions we receive.
I’d ask the good Bp Campese, with whom I have no quarrel, whether he’d be berating his non-Ordinariate-headed brethren if the response from Rome had been: ‘The doors have always been open to individual conversion. They remain open. Take it or leave it. No special deal’? Now is not the time for indulging in moral or emotional blackmail. After all, Abp Hepworth has stopped calling the Ordinariate offer ‘Unity’ (with a capital U) and won’t be accepting it.
There’s a grey area between ‘united’ and ‘absorbed’ and we should in charity allow for different views as to where the line is drawn. Some see the Ordinariate offer as ‘united’–others as ‘absorbed’, or at the very least engulfed.
Excellency, thank-you for taking the time to comment. The problem I have is with those who are the ‘fallout’ if you will of the Ordinariate, who will not be going (they have been rejected by Rome), and instead of regrouping in the TAC (to which they still belong) are now openly canvassing for another denomination. How ‘pro-catholic’ is that not?!
Unity, love and peace – For those staying and those leaving. That is the Christian way. Not all this venom and hatred being spewed around.
Indeed Fr. there is some very confused “Catholic” (so-called) thought and thinking floating about! And even though I myself put “catholic” within or with the “reformed”, I also see the classic Catholic sense. But, as I have been saying, for me the “Catholic” Faith resides foremost above, in the Risen, Ascended and Mediatoral Christ Jesus, Himself! And here, we simply would all agree, (I think? I hope!)
Allow me this quote from Calvin, I think it bears something of “our” Catholic Faith!
Ever since God exhibited himself to us as a Father, we must be convicted of extreme ingratitude if we do not in turn exhibit ourselves as his sons. Ever since Christ purified us by the laver of his blood, and communicated this purification by baptism, it would ill become us to be defiled with new pollution. Ever since he ingrafted us into his body, we, who are his members, should anxiously beware of contracting any stain or taint. Ever since he who is our head ascended to heaven, it is befitting in us to withdraw our affections from the earth, and with our whole soul aspire to heaven. Ever since the Holy Spirit dedicated us as temples to the Lord, we should make it our endeavour to show forth the glory of God, and guard against being profaned by the defilement of sin. Ever since our soul and body were destined to heavenly incorruptibility and an unfading crown, we should earnestly strive to keep them pure and uncorrupted against the day of the Lord. These, I say, are the surest foundations of a well-regulated life, and you will search in vain for any thing resembling them among philosophers, who, in their commendation of virtue, never rise higher than the natural dignity of man. – John Calvin
For those of us Anglicans, priests/presbyters or otherwise, that are Low Church on the question of the episcopacy of Christ, these issues are of little regard, save that “Christ Jesus” is the true “Chief Shepherd” and overseer of souls. (1 Peter 2:25 / 5:1-4) I too have been “Catholic” and Anglo-Catholic, but I have long come to see that this whole issue resides in the reality of Christ Above – as the “one Mediator between God and men”, both Christ Jesus above or on the Throne of the Father is the “Parakletos” – Advocate (1 John 2:1); as too the Holy Spirit as “Parakletos” is here below, in and with us! (John 14:16). And so we have one Paraclete, the Holy Spirit as here with us, and another Paraclete above “Christ Jesus” with the Father. The great doctrine of the Mediatorship of Christ, “in sessions” above for us, cannot be touched by human sin and loss here! For here, in and with the Church, is the reality of the Vicar of Christ, which is the Holy Spirit Himself!
For those of us who believe Reformed theology, its re-emphasis is the biblical stress on “saving history”. Christ is known in what He “does”, here is the three-fold office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. Indeed the formula owes its popularity to Calvin who first used it as a category of systematic theology. But too Lutheran, Anglican, and even Roman Catholic theology have used it. Note here John Henry Newman. So ‘Revelation, Atonement, and Lordship are three aspects of one and the same reality, of what God in Jesus Christ has done, and will do for us.’
And biblically, “Episkopeo / Episkopos” and elder (presbuteroi / presbuteros) are one!
“And indeed, faith ought not to be fixed on the essence of Christ alone (so to speak), but ought to attend to His power and office, for it would be of little advantage to know who Christ is, if this second point were not added, what He wishes to be toward us, and for what purpose the Father sent Him.” (John Calvin, from his Commentary on John 1:49) Indeed to really know Christ, is a part of the Father’s love for the Son, and the Son’s love of the Father. And the Holy Spirit is always centred here, as HE draws and is the Person of Love of the Father and the Son. This trinitarian love is the doctrine of God. But for us to approach this triune love, we must have and know our Mediator, (Eph. 2:18)….this “Son of His, God’s love”! (“his beloved Son” – Col. 1: 13). And yet, as we can see first, it comes from the Father…”giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.” (Col. 1:12) – Amazing!
Father,
I feel I should comment here to set the record straight. My suggestion of the “third grouping” was not a proposition for establishing one, and still less with me as any influence in it. I suggested something that might happen, and I was wrong about Bishop Botterill. Also, I must make it clear that I am not “canvassing for another denomination”, but merely suggesting it might be a possibility for some.
Perhaps the “choice” is binary and all-or-nothing. Not quite. People and clergy also have the option of calling it a day with churches and get on with life in another way. This is what can happen to people forced into a dilemma. Speaking with Bishop Gill, I asked him what about the ACA clergy who had joined the Patrimony of the Primate and who might not go to the Ordinariate. He admitted to me that their situation would be inextricable.
No church or community is a way for those with “no alternative”, but there is something I would make clear. There is an (undefined) category of clergy and faithful who have evolved past “classical Anglicanism” and who are not prepared to accept a resurgence of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic ecclesiology, or at least as they perceive it. Perhaps this category does not exist, and those who fall between two stools can be dispensed with – they don’t matter.
Perhaps some of us are no longer truly Anglican – so be it.
That’s the whole point, just what is an “Anglican”? And this goes beyond the “English” history, itself, we can and need to note the Irish reformation, and the creation of an Irish reformed church, 1590-1630, and the Irish Articles 1615, and Archbishop James Ussher, etc. As far as I can see historically, the Anglican Communion is both “Catholic” and “Reformed”, this is the Creedal history at least. And just like Luther, the Anglican Communion is fully “Catholic” in Christology… nothing is more important for both Luther and Anglicanism than the Nicene “homoousios”! In Christ, we are confronted by God Himself, for Christ is ‘very God’. And here true biblical and apostolic theology is Christocentric, but also always Theocentric. And it is here that I would suggest, and even press the exegesis of Matt. 16: 15-20. We should also note the context here of Matt. 16: 21-28, as it moves into the Escatological!
I know many wish us so-called ‘Low Church’ Anglicans (at least on the episcopacy) would just melt and go away, but the so-called Evangelical Anglicanism has a rich and real history itself, and the list of great Anglicans here is very real and profound!