Anglicanorum Coetibus - Coterie, or Cotters?

Hi there faithful readers,

At last the details of Pope Benedict's offer to those of us Anglicans sufficiently dissident to be seeking membership of the Roman Church. So far I have only skimmed through the document. It looks, as we expected, generous and detailed and compassionate, just the sort of offer we would expect to come from 'Benedictus PP XVI'.

I like what I have read so far. For those seeking Roman jurisdiction over their spiritual life and membership of its church, both parochial and global, I suspect that "There ain't gonna be a better offer."

However, throughout there remains the condemnation of Anglican Orders. Nowhere is it suggested that our present orders are in order. True the possibility that we acted as if they were in order, conducted our lives and ministry as if they were in order, and believed - and may still believe, perhaps - that they were in order, is to be taken into account in a future examination of our vocation to Roman Orders. However the truth of the matter is that at the moment we enter membership of the Roman Catholic church we have had no orders whatsoever of any validity, no valid episcopate, no valid presbyterate, not even a valid diaconate. Moreover, we are required to believe that we were mistaken in believing that we had them.

So then, nothing changes except the way in which groups of former Anglicans can be gathered together to worship in their own version of the Roman way, and a specialist ministry proved for them.

There is a lesson for the Church of England in particular. These provisions in Anglicanorum Coetibus form a very useful template for Anglicans who choose to remain Anglican and for Anglicans in general. They form the kind of provision for which Forward in Faith, the Third Province Movement and such organisations have been campaigning for some years and for which the provision and experience of PEVs gives support for its usefulness in maintaining a degree of unity within one fold.

Either way the numbers are likely to be small in the Church of England. About a third of Church of England members expressed disquiet or opposition to the decision to go ahead with the ordination of women in 1992. They are almost certain to stay, nearly all that is. A few hundred clergy resigned their offices, rather less left the Church of England. There were six hundred or so priests, I gather, at the recent Forward in Faith Assembly. Even if all availed themselves of this opportunity, the numbers of clergy so doing who are at present in full time ministry would be a small percentage indeed, despite the noise so many make!

So to the semantics which give an interesting side light on the situation. Coetibus in classical Latin referred to an group which came together, an Assembly in other word. Just the word for the job, assuming the meaning hasn't varied.

If my reasoning is right, and my knowledge of Latin is severely Classical in outline, then we have some words in the English language derived from it - Coterie - do we want to belong to a coterie, cosy is the adjective usually placed before this word? "Cottage" comes from it ... and I am not going down that route. Cottage is the home of a "cotter" an Anglo-Saxon who held a cottage and land in return for property. Not a bad description in some ways!

Best wishes all round,

Fr Ted

Glass Ceiling or Sea of Glass?

Yet another reprint! It seems apposite ecumenically.

"
Women Bishops - above or below?

There are curious aspects to debates about ministry. Most noticeable is the idea that the clergy form a set of lords and ladies with permission to push people about. "If I am not a Bishop or Priest I can't give people enough push to get things done" seems to be the refrain so often sung.

What nonsense! Speaking at my then diocese's first ordination of women the Lutheran Bishop of Hamburg made it quite plain that she saw her role as administration, and little else, indeed nothing else, if my memory is correct. A visit to Lutheran Hamburg a little later indicated to us that this was in fact so.

Isn't it better to forget "glass ceilings" militating against the preferment of female clerics and to focus on the "Sea of Glass" before God's throne and ask what should be done there? Ministry is about helping not lording it over the flock. The Old Testament got that right centuries before Christianity was born.

Let's hope we get it right this time and make allowances which enable us to live and work together in the "bond of peace" prayed for daily in the Church of England. May be we should be dancing before the Lord on that Sea of Glass in a myriad of wonderful and fruitful partnerships, in which we can all take part together and enjoy each other's company even though there are things, including important things, on which we disagree!

(21.1.2006)

Women Bishops? No need for debate!

This is a post I published in January 2006. Somehow it still seems apposite. The only reason for putting my tongue in my cheek is not the thought or the logic, but whether anyone would have the nerve!

"It's true, I trow! There was never any reason for the 1992 legislation to ordain women to the priesthood in the Church of England. Any diocesan bishop could have gone ahead quite legally and ordained one. That is the clear position of what the words of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the previous Canon Law said.

Since my last post I have been looking carefully through these legal documents of the Church of England, along with the "Thirty-Nine Articles." In them the word "man" and its compounds and associated pronouns is clearly inclusive everywhere. What we have done is to misread these documents using twentieth century meanings for its sixteenth and seventeenth century words.

So it has been really totally unnecessary all this anguish and division and "leaving the Church of England" between proponents and opponents of women as priests and bishops.

The most startling instance of the inclusive nature of the words used in these documents comes in the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, written in 1661 after the the restoration of the monarchy. It mentions "several Princes of blessed memory since the Reformation" during whose reigns revisions had been made. One of these was Elizabeth 1. The word "Prince" as used here, unusually to modern understanding, is clearly inclusive of both male and female.

So then, is the General Synod going to waste a lot of time and hot air on what is unnecessary once more?

Almost certainly, it is its way!

More to come later,

Fr Ted"

Christ or Narcissus? Whose face do they see?

" Narcissistic Personality Disorder. A distressing triad made up of pathological self-centerness; a repeated pattern of frustrating, damaging efforts to establish intimate relationships; and an insecure, fragile self-concept. Internally an unpredictable lability makes life miserable." C.M.Berry, "The Baker Encycopedia of Psychology" Marshall-Pickering, London/Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan h.b.,1223pp, 1985, p.745

Well, they gather in numbers in many places, liable to sudden moves and changes whenever the wind blows favourably from across the Tiber, or unfavourably from their own governing body in General Synod. Judging by the reports and comments on the blogs and websites and the church press and the broadsheets such gatherings have taken place wherever members of Forward in Faith have drooled together over the Pope's offering to groups of Anglicans who wish to become Roman Catholics whilst remaining as Anglican as they can.

Their self-centreness blinds them to the appalling damage such an action would do to the cause of Christian unity, as well as to the rather obvious point that being in an Anglican-style enclave of Roman Catholicism will mean that the rest of their Roman Catholic brothers and sisters will have little contact with them. Is that supposed to be unity? Theoretically, probably Yes. In practice the disunity is carried over. In terms of Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, disunity is increased by the appearance of a large "traditional" and catholic shaped hole within the former.

Believe me, I would have become a Roman Catholic many years ago were it not for one thing - my vocation. If I had looked only in the mirror, I might have been tempted to think - "What a lovely Roman you'd make"! However I looked also into the faces, and listened to the voices, of fellow Christians who knew nothing or very little of such things. They asked for my ministry. I saw the face of Christ in them and served them diligently and as best I could until illness, old age, and a measure of invalidity prevented it.

To convert to Roman Catholicism would have been to desert them. Being good Anglicans and not all traditionalist or catholic in their orientation,hardly any would have followed me even if I had asked! I stayed to serve them as I had been called to do, despite being regarded as more Roman in practice than many Roman friends. It was their description, not mine as I was only following normal Anglo-Catholic usage.

In time there will be those who after careful consideration feel that their true vocation is to serve in a different jurisdiction and ecclesiastical structure and that the Anglican Church which has nurtured and fed them so far is no longer home for them. I have no problem with these and respect their calm integrity and their thoughtfulness where it is present.

Change happens, as they say, and Cardinal Newman commented that a true Christian will make many changes, continuous conversion in essence. An acquaintance of mine returning to the fold after many lapsed years, having made a full confession and received absolution was told by her spiritual advisor "and now your conversion begins." For some conversion to Roman Catholicism will start that process in a new and exciting way. For many others a quick trip to their local psychoanalyst beforehand might be needed. I have been impressed over the years in contacts with Franciscans that so many of them had degrees in psychology and post-graduate qualifications in psychotherapy, (OFM Franciscans that is - SSF had the late and much loved Peter Graham of the Clinical Theology Association to help them over many years).

I have my doubts as to whether whether many of those members of Forward in Faith now so fervently saying they want to be Roman Catholics, Anglican-style, gaze into pools of water. However, they do, I suppose shave, or trim their beards, or brush and comb their hair and so look into a mirror. What do they see? Who is important? The lowly unprofitable servant of Christ and His people - or a wonderful reflection only of a self-centred personality. They may feel refreshed by the generous offer from Rome ... and it is unbelievably generous and kind. However they should perhaps themselves reflect on the fate described below of a certain, handsome, Greek, youth:

"Narcissus pined away and died, leaving behind only a small, sad flower which even today thrives best when bent over cool streams." C.M.Berry, op.cit. p.743

An apt description of our limper brethren in this matter.

A Quiet Day in Camberley

Dear Readers,

First "Thank You" to Canon Jerome. I look forward to an ongoing and cheerful correspondence.

Today has been quiet. After two days of comfortable activity, which I associated with the return to GMT, my body was back to the old, subdued, routine coupled with an emergency trip to the dentist which - to my relief - solved a little problem speedily.

Elsewhere I'm working on the various websites as I shape out a wider ministry on the web and so forth. The link is to a site that I worked on and then withdrew in order to bring up to date, which it is more or less, so visit and enjoy.

The link is I hope right. If not I'll correct it when I work out the problem. The site is fairly trivial, just a little background for those who want to know ... and "No, I shall not call you 'nosey'"! You have a right to know after all, I suspect.

Until the next post,not necessarily tomorrow,

Yours ay,

Ted Baty

We Anglicans are needed!

Dear Reader,

As promised a comment from the newspaper.

Michael Gove, our MP, has joined the ranks of commentators on Benedict's offer of an Anglican-style "ordinariate". His remarks conclude with words worth recording (my italics):

"I'm rather bored with everyone assuming that the Anglican Communion must always be on the retreat, in decline, progressively losing more and more of its members to other, more assertive, denominations. Why shouldn't a Church that prizes gentleness, civility, consideration, openness, moderation in manner but wise certainty about the ultimate things, prosper and grow? This is an hour, in so many ways, when the Anglican genius for compromise without any dilution of decency or virtue has never been more needed." ("The Times" newspaper, 26th October 2009, p.24)

Of course he is right and, appropriately for a Shadow Cabinet Eduation spokesman, educates us further. In the the present debate I cannot abide the harsh voices on either wing, whether feminists, or ultra-montane Anglo-Catholics, nor any other "in-your-face" activist.

To their credit the PEVs have asked for quiet reflection in the matter, alhtough "quiet reflection" is often the last thing activists enter.

The call to reflect has to be for everyone, including those members of General Synod who chose to ignore the advice of their own Bishops over how to articulate love and tolerance for the minorities in the Church.

I rejoice in being an Anglican and have no wish for our Church and Communion to become," .. just a Protestant sect after all!", as a Roman Catholic friend commented on reading the 39 Articles. May the broad and tolerant Church of England prosper for "Many Years!"

Yours ay,
(more reflectively, I hope)

Fr Ted

Who Goes There?

Dear Reader,

Unlike the normal sentry, I haven't said "Halt!" I would like some, at any rate of my readers to comment or let me know who - if anyone - is reading the post. It would be nice to know who you all are.

Today the process of re-entry carries on. The computer is slow still, but is gradually more able to come to heel quickly. So to a quick comment as regards yesterday's posts.

My concern is, I guess, spiritual blindness. Interesting as this subject is I am no expert, but yesterday's readings were about blindness and this by implication. Many of my colleagues are saying publically how happy they will be to accept Pope Benedict XVI's offer and become Roman Catholics. The priests among them must be either blind to the implications, ill-read, or guiltly of hypocrisy ... none of which I believe to be true ... well, maybe one or two cases - but we are taught not to judge. If they accept, they accept a package which says that their ordinations are null and void and invalid completely. There are no "If's" and "Buts". That is the simple state of affairs.

So why haven't I read of resignations en masse from all these colleagues? Is it that they are merely playing at something and that the cross-over to Rome is a merely decorative matter in their opinion. What I mean is: now they are Anglicans playing at being Romans; then they will Romans playing at being Anglicans. In other words they under-estimate the hugeness of the step before hand.

Cheerfully and robustly as always my MP, Michael Gove, has written some useful words on the matter. These I leave to another post as this is long enough already!

Till then,

Yours ay,

Every blessing,

Ted Baty

So then to today's

A Letter to Fr. X

Today I wrote a brief letter to a colleague whose identity I must keep hidden as so far the missive is not on his site. Being Sunday a late response is to be expected of a busy parish priest!
The letter is a response to his extremely enthusiastic acceptance, in advance as it were, of Pope Benedict's offer of an ordinariate within the Roman Catholic Church for ex-Anglicans. I believe that the letter raises crucial questions as to whether there is any radical change at all in respect of conversations between Anglicans and Rome over ecumenism. Like me he is a keen member of the Anglican organisation "Forward in Faith".

I wrote:

'You ask, Fr., "why not want to accept Pope Benedict's offer?"

'I too would regard myself as a "Catholic-minded Anglican" although with a very Evangelical background in past years. However the offer does not apply to Catholic-minded Anglicans but to future groups of newly converted Roman Catholics who used to be "Anglican-minded"!

'So I have a problem in the matter as an Anglican priest for over forty-six years. In order to accept I have to accept also that my present Anglican orders are the result of Anglican ordinations which were "completely null and avoid" as "Apostolicae Curae" defines them.

'Pope Benedict's offer is a very gracious one, no surprise as given by one who spoke years ago as Cardinal Ratzinger of "the continuing stream of genuinely Catholic life and practice which has existed within Anglicanism throughout its history." However it is, as noted above, not to be construed as accepting groups into the Roman Catholic Church as Anglicans but rather to allow ex-Anglicans a familiar culture within an ordinariate.

'The dilemma faced by "Catholic-minded Anglicans" such as you and me is that the instant I wish to take up the offer is also the instant in which by implication I too declare our Anglican ordination to be of none effect. As a parish priest I would simply have to resign.

'Some seem to be arguing that this would not be so during any negotiations with the various Anglican groups. However the matter of Anglican orders isn't negotiable at present. hence the stark dilemma we face. Those who think their Anglican orders are valid cannot accept these proposals, such a mind-set being unacceptable from a Roman stand-point today.

'The side effect of the announcement is that we are all busy thinking things through again. That, surely, must be welcome, so thank you!
Every blessing,(my guardian uncle used to live in xxxxxx just round the corner from you.

Ted Baty(The Reverend Doctor Edward Baty, aka "Fr Ted")'

I guess I ought to write the substance of this to all "Forward in Faith" clergy - alas, a task rather beyod me!

What they actually said

This is by way of a little documentation about Anglican/Roman Catholic unity matters in the light of the excitement over the latest offer from Rome.

Firstly, Pope Leo XIII (Apostolicae Curae, 1896): "... ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite have been and are completely null and void".

Archbishops Benson and Maclagan (Canterbury and York respectively) 1897 "... in overthrowing our orders, he [Leo XIII] overthrows all his own, and pronounces sentence on his own Church".

St. Pius X (Successor as Pope to Leo XIII) gave an assurance to the Anglican divine Dr. Briggs that "this decision of his predecessor was not infallible".

Cardinal Ratzinger (the present Pope) spoke warmly of "the continuing stream of genuinely Catholic life and practice which has existed within Anglicanism throughout its history."

Enjoy!

Having your cake and eating it!

I am puzzled.

The Fif Assembly is revealing among some members an astonishing hypocrisy (= failure to judge one's own actions sufficiently).
Anglican clergy are busy welcoming the Pope's offer of an "ordinariate" and are rude about those who see this as not changing the rules one bit and prefer to follow their consciences and either stay as Anglicans or to convert to Rome under the present arrangements. If they are so keen to accept, why cannot they just "cross the Tiber" and get on with being Roman? After all they will have the pleasant experience when the ordinariate comes into being of guiding their former colleagues "home" as they see it.

I suspect hyposcrisy. They really want to carry on exactly as before, with their own buildings, liturgy and so forth. Yet if they truly believe that Rome is the way to go .. why don't they just get up and go? The offer is crystal clear: "If you come over to Rome you abrogate everything Anglican, including your orders and your previous service". The time has not yet come when we can be Roman and Anglican at the same time.

To stay is to continue in something that they believe to be untrue.

I do wish they wouldn't continue such blatant hypocrisy; it isn't nice!

Yours ay,

Fr Ted