Church

The New Traditional Anglican Communion Website

The new Traditional Anglican Communion website which I stumbled upon quite by chance a little while ago:

It has the Most Rev. Samuel P. Prakash as Primate:

The Rt Rev Michael Gill as Secretary of the College of Bishops:

 

There are a number of interesting links including an about page:

Our mission is to recall Anglicanism to its heritage, to heal divisions caused by departures from the Faith, and to build a vibrant church for the future based on powerful local leadership.

The Church seeks to uphold the Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship and Evangelical Witness of the Anglican tradition within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. The Communion holds Holy Scripture and the ancient Creeds of the Undivided Church as authentic and authoritative, and worships according to the traditional Liturgies of the Church. Along with the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, it is considered one of the three branches of the universal Catholic Church.

I shared my thoughts on the above position yesterday in: An Ecclesiological Reflection: The Emerging Traditional Anglican Communion.

To it I would add that καθολικός in the context of Christian ecclesiology would apply (as understood in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed) to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the so-called “two lungs” image, depending of course on your criterion for what constitutes the original Church. With the inception of the apostolic constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus (reaching out to the Anglican world), and the Traditional Anglican Communion’s original interest in walking a path of Christian unity (communion), followed by last week’s rejection (‘decline the invitation’) of the offer extended, the TAC would now be hard-pressed to lay any claim to a part in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, beyond mere lip service. She is moving in the opposite direction, and that of own choice. Any theologian would be able to point this out.

All things said, do feel free check out the website here.

 

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “The New Traditional Anglican Communion Website

  1. The invitation was never offered to the TAC as a communion. It was offered to individual Anglicans, or, at the most, to parishes, in which the individuals still had to make the choice. Further, it is arguable that what was offered was ‘reconciliation’ or ‘unity’. After all, it certainly wasn’t a situation of bishops embracing bishops as brothers. There are some of us who are content to believe that this is the best offer we’ll get and will be grateful to take it, others to think that a more honourable reconciliation is out there and want to stay out there working towards it. But if you’re going to get Rome fever, please do those who have provided you with a home for your ministry thus far the courtesy of going quietly and not trashing the communion in which you currently serve. You are far from the first young priest to find himself in this position. I’ve seen it all before.

    1. Thank you for helping me here Sandra.

      Please do allow me however to state categorically that I serve the Church loyally. I obey my Bishop, and take most seriously my vows of Canonical obedience. If pointing out an ecclesiological (and theological) inconsistency constitutes ‘trashing’, then so be it. I stand accountable before a holy and almighty God for every thought, word and decision. He will be my judge. And He knows my heart.

      ‘Rome fever’? (I do speak of Orthodoxy too). The door to ecumenism should always be left open, if not widely, at least but a crack… It should not shut completely (as it has). That is inconstant with the Received Faith. Then, as I have said here, we are moving in the wrong direction. I say again: we.

      Would you see my back for being honest and trying to be faithful to the cause of Christ? Or because we disagree? Sadly, that would seem to be a little harsh and more than uncharitable. I may even go as far as to suggest, unChristian?

      Again, thank you,

      With every good blessing,

      Stephen

  2. I am sorry if I have misdiagnosed Rome Fever. But I’ve seen it before. And no, I’m not demanding to see your back, just that, if you show it to us, you’ll have the decency to do so quietly.

    I don’t believe the door to ecumenism has been closed. The bishops signed a petition and whether or not it was a reply, Rome generated an Apostolic Constitution that required them, according to the official commentary, to submit to unconditional ordination–if they were selected for it. Some are able to cross their fingers behind their back and accept it for what they perceive as the greater good, others are not. I don’t believe they have said unequivocally that all dialogue with either Rome or the East is off for ever.

    You have to understand, as no doubt you do, that the TAC bishops are coming out of nearly a decade of being led by a man who, as some would judge, had not an Anglican bone in his body and was perceived by some (perhaps the same some) to be using the TAC as a means of getting back to his ‘first love’, Rome, with his status at the very least undiminished from what it was when he left. So they need to redefine themselves and regain their true nature before they can sensibly engage in dialogue with others.

    I’m not saying that there are some, even among the bishops, who wouldn’t want to bother engaging in dialogue, but I expect or at least hope there are many in the TAC who will want to retain cordial relations with those in the Ordinariate, and who want to regroup, build the TAC (and whatever other Continuing Anglican jurisdictions it reconciles with) into a credible communion, with properly trained clergy and proper disciplined structures. That will be the beginning of work that will probably take generations, towards getting the response the bishops hoped to get to the petition.

  3. Yeah! Rival TAC websites. I read on the English Catholic that the +Hepworth is meeting next month with the group still “loyal to the Holy Father’s vision”. I wonder who will get to keep the name “TAC”. When do the lawsuits start?

  4. Sandra I agree with you fully that the offer was not made for Communion but for absorption and also for absorption. It is somewhat very disturbing that Father Stephen will claim that we are not a member of One, Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and there is nothing to interpret to what Father Stephen is a saying, to say that our Bishops are taking opposite direction, that shows at least for me disobedience to the TAC at large. sandra is not unchristian at all Father, she tells you the truth that if it needs be, that you condone Archbishop Hepworth’s taking of decision without consulting the College of Bishops, I think you leave us with an assumption that you were promised something Father. Please in the future Father, try to raise your views one on one with our Bishop Gill instead of arguing about this sensitive issue on line.Sandra you are correct the room for discusions are still open. The hammering of Anglicans with one another by Father Stephen is also unacceptable debate, please Father stop this kind of comment. Please Father don’t say we do not allow disagreement but they shopuld not be made at public especially from a Priest, and I believe everyone is free to make his/her choice i.e. to be with us or leave us, also take a chouce quietly.

    1. Hello Patrick. How are you? Well I hope?

      Thank-you too for commenting and raising the various concerns that you do. I must however say that I find your comment (tone) to be largely polemical, reactionary, unengaging and thus quite unhelpful. I am of the usual habit of deleting such indecorum, sending it off into cyber-oblivion, but for the sake and cause of Christ and His Gospel, I will indulge, and that in a fraternal spirit.

      Sandra I agree with you fully that the offer was not made for Communion but for absorption and also for absorption. It is somewhat very disturbing that Father Stephen will claim that we are not a member of One, Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and there is nothing to interpret to what Father Stephen is a saying, to say that our Bishops are taking opposite direction, that shows at least for me disobedience to the TAC at large.’

      Absorption into what? Not into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ? To ‘interpret’ what I am saying (and why), please do take the time to reread (read?) the observations I make in the post, ‘An Ecclesiological Reflection: The Emerging Traditional Anglican Communion’. They are exactly that: a reflection – which I believe to be Biblically, ecclesiologically and theologically correct at that. The Church is and was intended to be a collective. We are not One (cf. Eph. 4:5-6). We may be Holy (Catholic and Apostolic is always debatable and argued about frequently), but we are not One. We (our Bishops and Vicar Generals) asked for re-unity. A petition and a copy of the Catholic Catechism was signed by them on the altar and sent to Rome. Now while the offer that came back was not what was expected, it allowed for individuals to make personal decisions as to where they stand in relation to the issued apostolic constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus. Honestly, how can you expect to be in Communion but not absorbed? Part of, but not part of? That’s nonsensical. Schismatic. It’s like a cartoon I saw the other day: ‘I want unity, but on my terms’. It never works that way.

      So when and where there was deemed to be sufficient interest (globally), Ordinariate structures were put into place in order to receive (in groups), those Anglicans longing and praying for reconciliation and unity. When the Bishops and Vicar Generals (most, of a divided) TAC say they are ‘declin[ing] the invitation’, in other words, not following through, or doing an about-turn, or ‘taking opposite [sic.] direction’, how does that make me disobedient? I’m merely stating a fact. Or a scholarly (I hope) opinion. While I’m no Canon Theologian, the Latin maxim: semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, does come to mind my friend.

      sandra is not unchristian at all Father, she tells you the truth that if it needs be, that you condone Archbishop Hepworth’s taking of decision without consulting the College of Bishops…’

      I never said she was ‘unchristian’. What I said was:

      ‘Would you see my back for being honest and trying to be faithful to the cause of Christ? Or because we disagree? Sadly, that would seem to be a little harsh and more than uncharitable. I may even go as far as to suggest, unChristian?’

      We cannot drive people off simply because we disagree with one another. We are Christians. We live in bonds of charity, love and peace (1 Cor. 13). The fallen world always looks on and judges. ‘I speak to your shame,’ says St Paul ‘Is it so that there is not among you any one wise man, that is able to judge between his brethren?’ (1 Cor 6:5).

      ‘I think you leave us with an assumption that you were promised something Father’

      Promised what? I work in Christ’s cause and service. And the only thing I am promised is persecution (Matthew 5:10-12; 10:16-20; 20:23; John 15:18-21). Sharing in His suffering and promises, I gladly will, ‘For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us (Rom. 8:18). This may seem odd to you, but let me invite you to freely enquire of me, my person, character and integrity to our Bishop (Michael Gill). Let him speak of me. While I have my faults, shortcomings, and sins (which are ever before me) hypocrisy is not one of them. What you see is what you get I’m afraid.

      Please in the future Father, try to raise your views one on one with our Bishop Gill instead of arguing about this sensitive issue on line.’

      Thank-you for this. Yes. But the blog is mine. Here, I like to reflect, dialogue (‘ponder’ is the word I use) and engage biblically, theologically, and archaeologically. ‘Argue’ is just not the right verb to use. And the only thing that makes matters ‘sensitive’ is our unwillingness to be open, honest and engage charitably. People throughout the blogosphere have made hurtful, dishonest, rebellious, scandalous, statements. Others whispered, but they never speak. I simply saw it fit to comment on the statement:

      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 1, 2012 THE TRADITIONAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION COLLEGE OF BISHOPS

      released (in public) on the blogs (not mine, I never received a copy). As a Priest serving in this said Communion, I have every right to react. ‘We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe’ (Blessed John Henry Newman).

      The hammering of Anglicans with one another by Father Stephen is also unacceptable debate, please Father stop this kind of comment. Please Father don’t say we do not allow disagreement but they shopuld not be made at public especially from a Priest, and I believe everyone is free to make his/her choice i.e. to be with us or leave us, also take a chouce quietly.’

      Yes, it was Our Lord who said, ‘He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth’ (Matthew 12:30). You choose to use these, His words, to polarise. But my beliefs are not private. I will one day be answerable to the Lord as Omnipotent Judge, for every word, thought and action. Him alone. So the idea is to ‘bring into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ’ (2 Cor. 10:5). This is all I seek to do.

      So it would seem that you too would have me go ‘quietly’. Where to if I may ask? Why? And on what grounds? For prickling the sensitivities of man? For speaking the truth?

      Sir, if I must go, it will be because the Bishop asked me to leave, or I asked him to excuse me. No one else. Then, I will go prayerfully, in peace and love, for I am not an argumentative, quarrelsome or dissident person. I am a first, foremost and will ever remain: A servant of Christ Jesus the Lord.

  5. The Church is indeed to be a collective, but based on Revelation, Scripture and Tradition! On none of these can I find anything to substantiate Rome’s claims to Infallibility or Jurisdiction. This is the rift in the Holy Garment!

  6. This is why I could not remain Anglican or Protestant. Simply put alot of unproved polemics experiential theology ( bible only) = personal opinion and ultimately leads to revisionism or fundamentalism or in alot of cases agnosticism and out of Christianity all together. For 1500 hundred years before the reformation Christianity in its sacramental form stood as a bulwork against religious confusion, invasions, a powerful islam, movements that denied the divinity of Christ, orgional sin, and spiritual gnosticism etc. It gave us the bible + 7 books, liturgical pattern followed even in the anglican world, the great early creeds, and many of the believes we hold or debate about. This came a united Church which held beleives that are anathema by many protestants. A Church that understood the need not only teach what the apostles taught but to remain under the authority of the Apostles and thier successors. A church that respected history while looking to the future. Churches that continue to say the Bible is the only authority will always fall into heresy or fundamentatlism and eventually empty themselves . I converted to Catholicism because honestly outside of the divisive orthodox faiths only one Church speaks with complete authority from the Apostles and the Chair of Peter that is The Roman Catholic Church.

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s