The Anglican Catholic Chronicle — ACCC Newsletter (Nov 2012)
November 4, 2012 24 Comments
The Anglican Catholic Chronicle newsletter of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada for the month of November is out.
Download it in pdf. here.
TAC Priest in South Africa.
24 Responses to The Anglican Catholic Chronicle — ACCC Newsletter (Nov 2012)
Post a Comment
Your Comments…
 | Margaret on Pope Francis: The Lord Has Red… |
 | irishanglican ~ Fr.… on Pope Francis: The Lord Has Red… |
 | Matthew Fowler on A Church with a Future |
| Margaret on Pope Francis: The Lord Has Red… |
| irishanglican ~ Fr.… on Did Pope Francis Preach Salvat… |
| irishanglican ~ Fr.… on Pope Francis: The Lord Has Red… |
 | Fr Gerard on Pope Francis: The Lord Has Red… |
| irishanglican ~ Fr.… on Pope Francis: The Lord Has Red… |
 | Michael Frost on Did Pope Francis Preach Salvat… |
| irishanglican ~ Fr.… on A Church with a Future |
| Michael Frost on What the Anglo-Catholics Have… |
| irishanglican ~ Fr.… on Did Pope Francis Preach Salvat… |
| Fr Gerard on Pope Francis: The Lord Has Red… |
| Fr Gerard on Pope Francis: The Lord Has Red… |
 | Timawa on Pope Francis: The Lord Has Red… |
Help… Support…
News Headlines
- 'Yurt war' in rural France as British families find the good life turned sour
- Stockholm riots leave Sweden's dreams of perfect society up in smoke
- Female suicide bomber attacks police headquarters in Dagestan
- Washington state bridge collapse caught on camera
- Gas cylinder explosion on school bus kills 17 children in Pakistan
- Rare Superman comic discovered in wall of abandoned house in Minnesota
- Teenager arrested over Facebook comments about Boston Marathon bombers denied bail
- Toronto mayor Rob Ford breaks silence to deny he smokes crack cocaine following video allegation
- Robert Mugabe claims he could trust Margaret Thatcher but Tony Blair was dishonest in new documentary
A Global Blog!
And my Wish List…
Not much to it this time around. I thought the ACCC was now separate from TAC. So confusing.
I would have thought it rather unusual to have such a publication written entirely anonymously bar the cookerty bit.
Surely they can do better you think ?
Fr Ed Bakker OPR
Well…yes. I assume that this was produced under the authority of The Right Reverend Craig Botterill, Q.C,.Acting Metropolitan, Apostolic Administrator. Provincial Chancellor (and Lord High Everything Else), but it is unusal to see such things on the web without an indication of who the author might be,
Still, it is perhaps understandable that this clerical gentleman might want to keep a low profile these days since Bishop Botterill’s letter did rather seem to be: “merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative”.
And BTW Jamie Oilver’s Recipe for Ribollita is possibly an improvement on that from Maggie’s kitchen – especially the recommendation to accompany the soup with “lots and lots of Chianti”!
More seriously, as a Catholic living in England, I have watched the position of the “Anglo-Catholic” wing of the CofE steadily deteriorate. Despite 500 years of schism, much of Catholic theology and practice has survived in the CofE (and by extension within the other Churches of the Anglican Communion), and there were at one time hopes that the schism might be healed via the ARCIC process.
But the Erastian relationship between the CofE and the state got in the way as also did a nasty little virus which goes by the misleading name of “Affirming Catholicism”.
I know not what the outcome of the General Synod meeting on 20th November might be, but it does not look as if even the notorious “Code of Practice” will be of much comfort.
The “Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod” (aka the Monstrous Regiment of CofE Women) has made no secret of what it wants: GRAS Objectives. The last objective is categoric:-
“A commitment that, since the Church has accepted the principle of the orders of women as priests and bishops, in future all those being ordained should openly accept those orders as valid in accordance with the existing ecclesiastical rule (Canon A4).”.
That is designed to ensure that the much vaunted Mission Society of Saint Wilfred and St Hilda will in reality be nothing more than a terminal care home for Anglo-Catholics. Once there is a requirement that all future CofE ordinands accept that women are validy ordained, the genuinely Anglo-Catholic parishes will die out for want of clergy.
I welcomed Anglicanorum Coetibus as a means of reuniting Anglo-Catholics with the historic faith of these Islands. I rejoice to see that no fewer than 6 former Anglican Bishops are now Monsignori in our OLW Ordinariate, that a respectable number of clergy and laity have been received and that the first candidates for ordination are already in training. I hoped that Ordinariates elsewhere would also flourish. Therefore I was hopeful that the TAC clergy and laity would also welcome the process elsewhere.
It was therefore a great sadness to see that some TAC bishops went back on the commitments they gave at St Agatha’s in Portsmouth. So far, I have not seen any single one of them give a properly reasoned explanation for their backtracking. Can Anglo-Catholic belief survive in the alphabet soup of “continuing Anglcan” jurisdictions? I have serious doubts that it will.
How do you know when a bishop is lying? Answers on £10 notes to a charity of your choice!
Mourad …. this backtracking by the Bishops, dont you think that there is an element of
trying to protect their own position as Bishops? Because if they had moved to the AC, they would have certainly lost that status?
As I indicated before , I was not impressed by the ACCC newsletter at all, neither I am very impressed with Bishop Botterill to whom I wrote in confidence , who then reported me to Bishop Robarts , my former Parish Priest and Friend, who then turned right against me with a tongue lashing by e-mail. Is it not surprising then that I am completely put off by returning
to an ACCA/TAC ( that is , ever it ever eventuates ).There seems to be such a contrast in the TAC now , what comes out of Johannesburg is very positive, I said so myself, but was is pumped out from other sections lacks any zoom, zing and zest. A Bishop I know, who shall remain unnamed wrote to me this morning advocating a great future for continuing Anglican Churches and I asked him for evidence on which he based his opinion. I can understand that the Church will grow in South Africa, but when it comes to Australia, New Zealand and also the UK, I have my grave doubts. But anyone out there, I would be delighted if you could prove me wrong;.
Father Ed Bakker OPR
Fr. Bakker, this is absolutely not your concern. You are not a TAC priest, and it appears that the only thing you do with your ministry, is jurisdiction hopping.
Brave… hiding behind a name …. whether it is my concern or not is my business, not yours.
Many Bishops, Priests and laypeople have been jurisdiction hopping , because of some of the wrotten people that make life around that make life difficult for others in the Church. I dont need to mention any more names , there are many names listed on this blog.
The Church of God is broken, because of some of its people, sometimes it is necessary to make a stand and move on. I am quite sure that I will never find the perfect Church.Your comment is way out of order you dont know anything in relation of my daily Ministry.
Apologize if you dare.
Fr Ed Bakker OPR
I hope you have informed the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion of this unacceptable behaviour by TWO of its Bishops.
Why should he inform the Acting Primate when he can inform the whole world? And give his own spin on events into the bargain. Let’s see: a priest goes over the local bishop’s head (or at least outside his jurisdiction) and writes to another bishop. The other bishop refers the matter back to the bishop whose jurisdiction it is. That, apparently, is a breach of an obligation of confidentiality. It is, however, no breach of any obligation of confidentiality, or indeed of simple good manners, for that priest to go publishing his take on the correspondence all over the internet. Go figure.
@ fatheredbakker. I assume for present purposes that all the remaining TAC bishops are married. In that case, of course, such a cleric would not be consecrated a bishop in the Catholic Church. He would in principle be eligible for ordination, and, as you probably know, those who formerly held episcopal orders in the CofE/TAC have, after a reasonaably short interval, been made prelates of the Catholic Church.
It appears as if the standard appointment for an Ordinary is to be that of Protonotory Apostolic, for former bishops who are Assistant Ordinaries, that of Prelate of Honour and for other former bishops that of Chaplain to the Holy Father. It was made clear that the appointments for retired bishops were an expression of appreciation for their entire ministry. Former bishops are allowed to use episcopal regalia.
Those who are appointed Ordinaries have all the jurisdiction of a Catholic Bishop which they exercise by delegation from the Holy Father. They cannot ordain clergy because they are not bishops, but they can issue dimissorial letters to a bishop for the ordination of their candidates for the diaconate or priesthood. Ordinaries are full members of their national bishops’ conferences.
And by the way, there is nothing to stop an Ordinatiate priest one day being nominated a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Blessed John Henry Newman, a former Anglican was so elevated, but he was a priest, never a bishop.
There is also something I have noticed aboult the OLW Ordinary. Because our Ordinary’s jurisdiction covers the whole country, he has quickly become a national figure in much greater measure than is the case for many diocesans (whether in the CofE or the Catholic Church). That is perhaps not yet the case for the newer Ordinaries in the USA and Australia – but there is no reason why it should not also be the case in those countries too..
So as a suffragan CofE bishop and a Provincial Episcopal Visitor Bishop Keith Newton had a rather limited ministry. Now as Mgr Keith Newton, the OLW Ordinary, he has a much wider pastoral charge which encompasses the whole country not only for his Ordinariate but for the whole Church and people of God. This is especially reelvant.
It rather seems to me that if a bishop of the TAC were sincere in his acceptance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then he would know that ut unum sint was not an optional extra but an imperative of his catholic faith not to be delayed or ignored whatever the cost.
I was rather struck by the homily of another former Anglican PEV at the ordination of two former Anglicans, one ex CofE and one ex TAC. Homily of Monsignor Edwin Barnes for the ordination of Brian Copus and John Maunder to the Sacred Priesthood . You may find it strikes a cord.
Appreciated your comments Mourad. Thank you.
Father Ed Bakker OPR
Fr. Ed, All I can say is I hope you find some permanent peace somewhere on God’s green earth and if you don’t here, then in the afterlife. As regards jurisdictions and faith groups, I assume you have strong convictions as regards things like dogma, liturgics, etc. You know what you believe in and believe what you know. I assume this explains why you are not RC, EO, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, etc., but are Anglican. Those Anglicans who no longer believe in Anglicanism should be searching long & hard and go where they believe they’ve found Truth, the Church, and Christ. Those Anglicans who believe in Anglicanism should be working hard to preserve and strengthen it.
Btw, Michael, whatever one can say historically about Anglicanism, both the Irish Articles 1615 and the Thirty-Nine Articles (Cranmer)..they were/are certainly “Reformed”. Even John Wesley stood with Calvin on the doctrine of Justification by Faith! (Note his Journal, Tues., May 14, 1765). And he could write in his “Works, X, 389″…I believe justification by faith alone, as much as I believe there is a God. I declared this in a sermon, preached before the University of Oxford, eight-and-twenty years ago. I declared it to all the world eighteen years ago, in a sermon written expressly on the subject. I have never varied from it, no, not a hair’s breadth, from 1738 to this day.” We can see this also in Wesley’s ‘Notes on the New Testament’ and in many of his Sermons!
And as I have noted, the early Anglican theologians, like Bishop John Jewel and Archbishop James Ussher, did not see the office of Bishop or presbyter in the Roman Catholic sense. Indeed they were simply “Reformed” and Reformational, this is historical.
Yes, Cranmer was certainly influenced by Calvinism (after first being influenced by Lutheranism). And while John Wesley (a true giant of both theology and piety) certainly agreed with Luther and Calvin on the primary foundation of justification, his view is much more nuanced and wholistic by rejecting antinominaism and stressing real sanctification. One can’t say the same about Wesley agreeing with Calvin on predestination/election (and even here Luther diverges from Calvin’s more pronounced views). Wesley’s publication, The Arminian, was essentially an in-your-face rejection of Calvinism in the then ongoing “war” between Whitefield and Wesley.on predestination. If only Luther, Calvin, and Wesley could’ve debated publicly with each other!
As for Anglicans, I’m certainly much more in line with Archbishop Laud (martyred by Reformed Puritans) and the Non-Jurors. They weren’t in the Reformed camp. For Lutherans, no question but that Melanchthon was the apologetic & systematic “brains” behind Luther’s rather unsystematic theology. I’ve never figured out why Lutherans threw P.J. Spiner under the bus. Was he a “proto-Methodist” Lutheran?
Btw, and I say this sadly, fewer and fewer Anglican theolog’s are driven today by biblical theology, as were the Reformers. We can note N.T. Wright is basically pressed by history and the Second Temple ideas therein, rather than the exegetical of the Holy Scripture, itself, and certainly away from Luther! Of course this is a debate somewhat, but I myself side with the Reformers still. And of todays Luther scholars, note Udo Schnelle is very good, see too his book in English (translated by Eugene Boring, Baker Academic, 2005), Apostle Paul, His Life and Theology. But still my favorite, Luther work, is by the late Bernard Lohse: Martin Luther’s Theology, Its Historical and Systematic Development (1999 in English). Lohse was German too, as is Schnelle.
Yes, I am a Wesley reader, both John and Charles! Both of these Evangelical Anglicans are simply profound historically! I have read my share of the debate between the non-juror William Law and John Wesley. Of course both were great personal Christians, but Law is far from Evangelical theology, and John Wesley’s doctrine of “Perfection” was certainly flawed biblically! Of course no Laud for me! I like Melanchthon myself too, he and Calvin were friends, but Melanchthon’s theology is a bit too “humanist” to my mind! I like the rough edges of Luther myself!
Yes, the early and English Methodists were close to Luther and Lutheranism to degree. See the Swiss Harald Lindstrom’s classic work: Wesley and Sanctification. The 1940′s thru the 60′s books of The Epworth Press are always Luther friendly! I simply love the English Methodist, Philip Watson! Who wrote one of the best Luther books ever in English: Let God be God, An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther, (1947). And yes, I have a first edition copy! (Oh how I miss those London Book Shops!)
I suspect that it would be very hard indeed to come up with a definitve statement of what Anglicans believe which would be acceptable to all Anglicans – and that’s a big part of the problem. Whould it be what the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA beleives? Or perhaps it can be found somehere in on the website of the Anglican Communion Or perhaps there is something definitive to be found in one of the Theological Colleges which train ordinands? Do please tell, because a lot of us have looked a\nd have not found.
@Mourad: Seeking to understand Anglicanism historically and theologically, simply MUST begin with the man and ministry/writings of the first great Anglican Evangelical, of course the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer! HE simply IS Anglicanism at some level! And we just cannot shake the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, either! And as I keep pressing too the Irish Articles 1615 here also! Here really is the essence of English and the Reformational/Reformed Anglicanism! Which again btw, supersedes historically the later High Church and Anglo-Catholic aspects; this is historical. Anglicanism was and always will be first and foremost Reformational and Reformed, this was its genesis and formation! We need to note too, people who went to England, to teach here.. like the great Peter Martyr Vermigli. And as too Martin Bucer! The Anglican Communion will never escape, at least historically, the Reformation, and the great English Reformation (as noted in the likes of Luther and later Calvin).
Not being Anglican, I’m not sure I can define them. But I do tend to know them when I worship with them! And they do appear to think, act, sing, and worship in some congruence, even when they disagree on something.
My short answer: an Anglican is a Reformation-derived “Western” Christian who says he is NOT Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant.
My longer answer would be the above but then state: as a group they appear to share much flexibility and rarely fully agree on anything at any one time, and they appear to desire both the flexibility and the disagreement!
Then I’d go to state it involves those whose common heritage includes the English Reformation (including Henry VIII, Queen Elizatbeth I, Cranmer, the BCP, the 39 Articles), King James & the KJV of Bible, Laud, Charles, the Glorious Revolution, & the Non-Jurors, and then go on to the Oxford Movement, the Quadrilateral, and the “office” of the Archbishop of Canturbury.
But isn’t it is up to them, not us, to determine who and what is Anglicanism?
Mourad, I think what you write about Anglicans and Anglicanism can be equally applied to Roman Catholicism. Is it Augustine? Aquinas? The Church of Trent? Vatican I? Vatican II? Is it the traditionalists? The liberals? The seeming overwhelming majority of “cafeteria style”? IF it is only those who BOTH know and fully accept the RC CCC, then I suspect there are few indeed.
All I know with absolute metaphysical certainty (based on what I’ve seen and experienced during my lifetime!) is that the RCC of 2012 is not the RCC of 1962. It clearly thinks, acts, sings, smells, dresses, builds churches, and worships differently. In 1952 one could clearly discern a RC from a Lutheran or Episcopalian. Now, their liturgies, lectionaries, vestments, hymnals, church buildings, and bibles are nearly identical. And the RCC of 2012 is different than the RCC of 1912. And 1512. And 1012. And 412. So which one is the RCC? Once again, I leave that entirely up to them, not me. So when my liberal cafeteria-style RC friends say they’re RC, I take them at their word.
Ouch Michael!
Nice logic about Roman Catholicism! I was in Dublin and Roman Catholic in the 50′s, and that church is way gone now! But surely modern Anglicans know almost next to nothing about the essence of the English Reformation, and Archbishop Cranmer! And you are so right, Dr. Luther was a great influence on Cranmer, as later Calvin. I love both of these men and Reformers! Yes, both have/had feet of clay! But, their personal lives and effort ‘In Christ’, was for the most part profound! Yes, I always have to preface Luther’s ill treatment of the Jews! And too, Reformed “eschatology” is very flawed! Note, I am Historic Pre-Mill.
I find things very difficult at the moment . Thanks for your concern Michael.
Father Ed Bakker OPR