The Traditional Anglican Church In Britain
Part of the World-wide Traditional Anglican Church
From: The Office of the Vicar General

Dear Father,

Since I last wrote to you in September, there has been a substantive development concerning our College of Bishops, with particular regard to the status and position of the Primate and the future direction of our Communion.

The College, by a unanimous majority of all of those eligible to vote have called for the resignation of the Primate with immediate effect. The Primate has indicated that he will resign as such at Pentecost 2012. The College has rejected this as unacceptable and has indicated that it will within the next six weeks determine the Primates status.

With reference to Bishop Moyer our Episcopal Visitor, Bishop David has received his nulae ostae, and will shortly be leaving for Rome.

Bishop Robert Mercer has already left for Rome.

The current leadership of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is firmly committed to assisting the TTAC and Episcopal oversight will be maintained thus enabling us to remain faithful to the Anglican way, with the provision of transparent and faithful support.

Regarding those of you who responded to the questionnaire that I sent to you in September, may I thank you for your time and consideration in responding.

Twelve priests indicated their desire to continue as TTAC/TAC priests and many members of our laity, the following points do not apply to you and you need take no action.

To those of you who did not respond and have submitted personal dossiers to Rome the following applies directly to you.

As we now know, the petition that was agreed at the Portsmouth Synod of the College Of Bishops and duly sent to Rome. The Petition did not receive an offer of “intercommunion or unity between us” from the Holy See, but an offer to us requiring personal individual conversions to become Roman Catholics. That offer has been rejected by our College of Bishops.

The Motion that was agreed and passed by the Assembly of the Traditional Anglican Church in October 2009, in pursuit the offer made by the Holy Father has also been firmly rejected by the College of Bishops and will not be implemented. The current leadership of the College of Bishops have authorised me to state the following; “that in effect those who have submitted dossiers for personal conversion to Rome have by their own actions indicated their decision to leave and have in effect left the Communion”.

Those of you who have submitted personal dossiers and may now wish to reconsider your position to return to the TTAC/TAC should do so by contacting me directly in writing by February 3rd 2012.

A Diocesan Assembly will be held in March 2012 in Lincoln, notices/agenda etc will be sent out in February. A revised clergy and parish list will be circulated in February.

In Christ

Father Ian+

It reminds me of San Francisco rookie cops from a Clint Eastwood movie – You’re either with us or you’re against us. Chilling.

What is most important is that he says:

The current leadership of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is firmly committed to assisting the TTAC and Episcopal oversight will be maintained thus enabling us to remain faithful to the Anglican way, with the provision of transparent and faithful support.

Who is the “current leadership of the TAC”? It is premature to affirm that anyone other than Archbishop Hepworth is the Primate of the TAC at this time. I am also shocked that priests who have made applications to Rome are considered to have tacitly resigned, and that they would have to go through some kind of “reconciliation process” were they not to go to the Ordinariate.

This is disappointing in view of the fact that there will be a regularly constituted College of Bishops meeting to elect a Primate to succeed Archbishop Hepworth. I have already discussed this matter and my opposition to a coup d’état in the TAC.

There is an anomaly in the letterhead, that of the Worldwide Traditional Anglican Church. There is such a body in Canada founded by the earlier dissidence from the ACCC. This might explain why the leading authority for Canon Ian Gray would not be Archbishop Hepworth. But, for the TTAC to change its affiliation from the TAC to another ecclesial body would surely require a proper vote in Synod and probably other measures too. If that had happened, we would know about it!

I love a mystery! Ooooh!

The three groupings seem to be clearly defined. There are those who will go to the Ordinariates or who will become Roman Catholics by other avenues, who have only to follow the directives of the Church to which they make their pilgrimage. Those who are forming alliances in the world that is characterised as Continuing Anglicanism seem to know what they are doing. My concern is with what I term as a “pro-Catholic” group which has “escaped” out of the “classical Anglican” mould.

I do not dare to pronounce which of the groups is the “true” TAC, considering that it has been defined in function to its corporate union with Rome. There is a school of thought that says that the TAC has no further raison d’être now that there are Ordinariates. Another opinion would say that the Ordinariates have been brought about in such a way as the raison d’être of the TAC is similar to that of the Society of St Pius X, a kind of “continuing Catholic” holding tank. The third group would maintain, in a logic of “Anglican sedevacantism” (cf. my old article Sessio and Missio) that it replaces the “failed Anglicanism” of the late Anglican Communion.

The fracture lines that have always been implicit are now clearly visible. I am myself in two minds about the future of this situation, wondering if the notion of Traditional Anglican Communion, modelled on the Anglican Communion should be allowed to die its death and for its present members to go one of the three ways and find peace and stability. The first thing is to decide what about Anglicanism constitutes a valid form of Catholic Christianity – the famous Anglican Patrimony. The next stage, logically, would be to consider whether we should seek out another form of “particular” Catholicism or launch ourselves into the modern rite Roman mainstream – or join the traditionalists which come in two varieties: in communion with Rome and dissident.

The parallels between Continuing Anglicanism and traditionalist Roman Catholicism are very marked, because the causes are analogous – the conservative reaction against the “liberal” mainstream introducing reforms that the traditionalist minority is unable to accept. Many traditionalist Anglicans are going to find the same stumbling blocks in mainstream Roman Catholicism as the RC traditionalists, the liturgy to begin with. This is the essential reason why the Ordinariates could not cater for the TAC except for parish-sized groups willing to make the necessary concessions to fit in with groups coming from a modern Episcopalian background.

The future of the TAC depends on whether the “sedevacantist-conclavist” continuing Anglican model or the “pro-Catholic” model will be adopted. That idea seems academic as these two categories have split apart, since bishops of the former tendency have asked for a humiliating and immediate removal of Archbishop Hepworth and presumably his replacement by one of their own. The “pro-Catholic” model might be a kind of projection of what might have been possible if diocesan or provincial units of the TAC had been allowed to become Ordinariates with their structures and institutions intact. This model, whether or not it is realistic, is what interests me in this article.

Before embarking on this subject, the part represented by Bishop Gill in South Africa, Archbishop Prakash and Bishops Marsh and Strawn in the US may make a claim to be the “true TAC” or abandon the notion of the TAC to define a new alliance of some kind, possibly in consultation with other existing continuing Churches like the Anglican Catholic Church – Original Province or the Anglican Province in America. They will surely decide what is best and I pray that God will bless them on their pilgrimage as Christians.

* * *

I have often given thought to the “pro-Catholic” model and shared ideas with Archbishop Hepworth. Looking at the directory on my hard disk, the files I sent him date from about September 2010. He thanked me for these contributions but said that there would be no “plan B” in the drive for the Ordinariate, at least not until it was all over. I doubt there is enough cohesion to make a “pro-Catholic” group distinct from the “Continuing Anglican” group, but there might be. The next months will tell.

My scenario of September 2010 predicted only a very small minority in the “pro-Catholic” group, since I foresaw a certain number of conversions to Roman Catholicism and many laity and even clergy giving up active Christianity. My evaluation of the Ordinariate was slightly on the pessimistic side, but not by very much. I predicted Archbishop Hepworth’s retirement as Primate, the union of the Canadian and US bishops with the other Continuers, and the fact that Rome would not grant any dispensations for any who had been ordained deacons or priests in the Roman Catholic Church. I needed no crystal ball or tea leaves, simply the Papal texts from November 2009.

I see the implementation of the Ordinariates as something like trying to converse with a person whose attention is directed elsewhere, and perhaps only half-listening.

The cohesion of a “pro-Catholic” group would depend on its reason for not going immediately to the Ordinariates under the Ordinariate’s terms (without intact structures) and how it defines its “particular identity” (liturgical rite, ethnical origins, etc.). It will not be enough to emphasise the vocations of the clergy involved. The cards have been played and the gamble was lost, unless there is an objective element – and that seems to be an identity or theory close to that of the RC traditionalists.

Catholic in spite of not being in canonical union with Rome because of a temporary abnormal situation or crisis. Do we really fit the profile? Could it be that Rome did not take the opportunity of catering for a “medievalist” aspiration? That seems absent from most of the present TAC – most of us just seem to be traditionalist Catholics with married priests and with less radical politics! Were it not for the married priests and if we had a more “regimented” priestly body, we could be in dialogue with the SSPX! But, as we are, they are not likely to be interested. We have too much in common with the Old Catholics!

Where do we want to go? Quo vadis? It is a really good question. Another question is what we have. I think we are looking at Bishop Botterill and his group in Canada, two or three English priests, Archbishop Hepworth as Bishop of Australia and perhaps most of his present clergy, 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. One of those bishops is going to have the profile for being Primate in terms of leadership skills and communication. Otherwise the whole thing will go to sleep. We will see when the College of Bishops meeting goes ahead.

Numbers of faithful? I would say a few hundred in the western world and a thousand or so between India and Torres Strait. That would not be bad. That would mean no more than perhaps a couple of bishops in exercise. The other bishops can simply pack away the insignia and other things and be seen as simple priests, simply with responsibilities of making sure everything goes well in their part of the world. You only really need a bishop for ordinations, since all oversight functions can be delegated to priests. There are two pitfalls to avoid: having too many bishops and resorting to episcopi vagantes for valid Orders.

In terms of organisation, I hardly see the need for a Primate and provinces and dioceses, but rather a single episcopal jurisdiction with the Bishop’s jurisdiction delegated to one or two auxiliary bishops (to make sure the worst doesn’t happen if the Bishop dies) and priests in their local areas. It can be as simple as that. Should that jurisdiction join a larger Church if the essentials are compatible, the PNCC for example? I think this would be the best thing to do, but I am not the one to decide… Such a union will be determinant in the way the group’s identity is defined in terms of liturgical rites, culture and doctrine.

What rite should we use? There are three possibilities, the English Missal, the Anglican Missal and the Use of Sarum translated into English (or even in Latin). The Nordic Catholic Church in Norway has a much more “medieval” observance, specially in the calendar, than in most of the rest of the PNCC using the modern Roman calendar. There is room for diversity at a local level.

How should we train our priests? We are assuming that most of our ordinands would be mature men with family and financial commitments and unavailable for full-time seminary training. The two most important elements of priestly training are full involvement in a parish community which imparts spiritual, practical and pastoral training – and serious theological studies. The latter could be accomplished by the distance-learning courses offered by a number of universities. You read books, write essays and take oral and written examinations – and organise your time. When you satisfy the university’s standards, you get your degree. That is a basis of credibility as is the recommendation of the priest who has known you for the past ten years. For most parish priests, such a method would seem to be most adequate.

If we have one to three bishops, fifty to a hundred priests and a thousand or so laity, no more elaborate organisation is necessary than that of an apostolic vicariate, a diocese without frontiers, simple and flexible. All dioceses have synods, and this jurisdiction would be no exception. If huge distances are involved, as there will be, we should not forget that electronic means of communication via the Internet can save the crippling costs of air fares and hotel accommodation.

Another aspect is important – canon law, but without stupidity and “positivism”. The 1983 Roman Code is largely very balanced and sensible, though there are laws that cannot be applied by those outside Roman communion. Nevertheless, it can be a good general guide. Priests should become familiar with it and read the commentaries used in university and seminary canon law classes.

It would be good if possible to phase out the married episcopate over time. There will be time, as there is nothing to talk about with Rome for the next fifty or a hundred years. Any union with Rome outside the Ordinariates (or individual conversion) is for future generations, not us. The PNCC has a married episcopate and is happy with it. There is no urgency. There is no point at this time to applying the discipline that prevails in the Oriental Churches. Divorced and remarried clergy do present a serious problem. We do have to set an example for our faithful!

Should we be rigorous about former Roman clergy? It might sound as if I “preaching to my own parish”, but Roman clerics leave their Church because the situation had become intolerable. How do we discern whether their reasons were objective or subjective? You either lock the doors and throw away the key – or try to have some kind of mechanism to avoid punishing a man for the sins of another. That is where the human element comes in. You can’t decide everything by ironclad rules, and you can’t just admit just anything, for example someone frivolously leaving the priesthood to run off with a nun or something like that.

It would be a challenge to make something like this work. Keep it simple and marked by its identity. Above all, we have to discern whether this is really right.

* * *

Diocese of Canada
Anglican Catholic Church of Canada

January 11, 2012

Dear Faithful in Christ:

As you approach your decision on whether or not to leave the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada to become Roman Catholics, I pray that God the Holy Spirit will guide and direct you. In this regard I wish to set certain facts before you. The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, as the Canadian Province of the Traditional Anglican Communion is and will remain an Anglican Church. The Constitution of the Traditional Anglican Communion, known as the “Victoria Concordat” enshrines the Affirmation of Saint Louis as the foundational statement of doctrine and belief of the T.A.C. and its Provinces.

The Affirmation of St. Louis provides “We declare our intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who ‘worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity’, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles . . .”.

This declaration has been interpreted by some to mean that we seek “unity” with the Roman Catholic Church alone – but that is clearly not what the Affirmation says. We seek unity with other denominations and jurisdictions – other Continuing Anglican Churches, the various churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Nordic Catholic Church, and with the various churches that are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

You are aware that in pursuit of such unity the Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion petitioned the Pope in 2007 to find ways to “permit us to remain Anglican Catholics” while returning to full communion with the rest of the Catholic Church. Rome’s response, “Anglicanorum Coetibus”, promised the “corporate reception” of Anglican groups, such as the various Provinces of the Traditional Anglican Communion. On that basis the Synod of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada asked to be corporately received (as an intact entity) into communion with the Pope as an Ordinariate. Our request was rejected, and in its place we were invited to each make an individual conversion and become Roman Catholics.

That is not our idea of “unity”. This idea has been rejected by the majority of bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, including those of the United States, South Africa, and India. We are, and will remain Anglican. Perhaps one day in the future the Roman Catholic Church will respect us enough to grant us the visible, sacramental, unity between our churches that we sought, without demanding that we abandon being Anglican to become Roman Catholics. Nevertheless, some clergy and laity in the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada have made a personal decision to accept this invitation to convert and become Roman Catholic. To honour their decision and to permit their graceful and orderly departure from the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada we have created a “Pro-Diocese” of Our Lady of Walsingham for those parishes that wish to leave the A.C.C.C. and convert to Roman Catholicism.

That is an option open to your parish. The other option is to remain in the Diocese of Canada (the original Diocese of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada), and thus to remain Anglican and remain members of the Traditional Anglican Communion. Some have interpreted the declaration to seek unity set out in the Affirmation of Saint Louis as meaning that the parishes of the “Pro-Diocese” will become Roman Catholics in the near future, while parishes of the original Diocese will join the Roman Catholic Church at a later date. This is not what the Affirmation says or provides for, as you can clearly read for yourselves. No amount of political persuasion can make this so. While we will strive to achieve visible, sacramental unity with other denominations and jurisdictions, we will not do so at the expense of no longer being Anglican.

So in summary the choice before you is simple:

1. Join the Pro-Diocese of Our Lady of Walsingham in order to leave the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada to become Roman Catholics, or;

2. Remain in the (original) Diocese of Canada, and thus remain Anglicans who are and will remain members of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada and of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

With every blessing to you and your parish as you approach this decision, I have the honour to remain,

Your Obedient Servant in Christ,

[signed]

The Rt. Rev. Craig Botterill, Q.C.
Provincial Chancellor, Anglican Catholic Church of Canada
Suffragan Bishop and Apostolic Administrator, Diocese of Canada

CRB/cb

Important update: Message from Bishop Moyer himself.

* * *

I put this in the most neutral way possible, since I am extremely sceptical of whatever David Virtue writes. However, I will give the link to an article with a somewhat dumb title: PHILADELPHIA: Fr. Moyer Denied Pathway to Papal-driven Ordinariate.

As the story goes, Bishop Moyer – until recently in the rare position of being both a TAC bishop and an Episcopalian parish priest – got his nulla osta – but has been turned down for ordination in the Ordinariate.

Supposedly, a cleric wanting to join the Ordinariate and be ordained a Roman Catholic priest has not only to have his nulla osta from Rome, but also his votum to proceed to ordination from the local Roman Catholic bishop where he lives – the Archbishop of Philadelphia in the case of Bishop Moyer.

The Virtue article then goes on to discuss Archbishop Hepworth – a dimension of questionable relevance in this precise question.

However, Virtue said this

Next month, the members of the TAC College of Bishops and Vicars General of the TAC will meet in Johannesburg, South Africa, where the expectation is that Hepworth will be formally voted out from leadership of the TAC. It is expected, though not confirmed, that Indian Archbishop Prakash will be elected to replace Hepworth. The senior bishop in the TAC will likely assume a more limited Primacy that is a more collegial primacy, a source told VOL. The TAC Concordat of 1990 will likely be revised.

Is any verification of these allegations possible? I don’t trust Mr Virtue, given his tendency to spin and exaggerate, but there might be something here to be concerned about. If you have any information – not just opinions – please feel free to comment with sources if possible.

* * *

Traditional Anglican Communion
Office of the Primate
Archbishop John Hepworth

28th January 2012

To the Bishops, clergy and people of the Traditional Anglican Communion

My Dear Fathers, Brothers and Sisters,

In June of 2003, I was elected as the second Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion. At the Plenary Meeting of our College of Bishops, held in Australia in conjunction with the inauguration of my Primacy, it was made strongly clear – without dissent – that I was to further the ambition of this Communion since its beginnings to discover a means by which Anglican ecclesial communities might come into the fullness of Catholic Communion in a corporate manner, without loss of the treasures of the Anglican tradition.

I prosecuted that mandate of the College in National and Diocesan Synods, in meetings and discussions with anyone whom I thought might assist in both Anglican and Roman Catholic circles, having made clear to the Holy See that I would not allow my own circumstances to become an impediment to unity.

With the promulgation of Anglicanorum Coetibus, the mandate given to me by the College is now complete.

I have been deeply concerned that most of our Communion has been marginalised by the process of implementing the Apostolic Constitution. My correspondence and personal representations have not been as effective as I would have wished.

I have been equally concerned that several of the Bishops of our College continue to set aside the provisions of the Concordat that regulates our life as a College. The Concordat is a deeply Anglican document. It cannot be changed or disregarded by bishops alone. The clergy and laity meeting as the National Synods of our Member Provinces must confirm changes before they become effective. Neither bishops nor anyone else can be expelled from Communion at the whim of the bishops. Several bishops have started to exercise prelacy of this most disturbing kind.

I have also been concerned at the lightness with which the most solemn decisions of the College are being set aside.

I indicated last December that I would spend some weeks discerning the moment when my retirement might best be accomplished. Some of the bishops have expressed impatience; others have dissented from their actions.

I have today forwarded to the Secretary to the College (an elected position of the College, not an appointment of the Primate) a deed of resignation to be effective on Easter Day of this year, and I have instructed the Secretary to conduct an election for the next Primate, in strict accordance with the procedure laid down by the Concordat, and according to the detailed process determined by the College prior to the resignation of Archbishop Falk, my predecessor.

I remain the Bishop Ordinary of the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia.

I ask the prayers of the whole Communion for their bishops at this time, as once again they seek the Divine Will.

+John Hepworth

 

The Vicar General’s January Newsletter