Friday, 18 November 2011

CBS - follow-up continued…………………………….

Since my original article on the CBS meeting on the 12th November which was a basically a report on the proceedings of that meeting I have been surprised and dismayed at some of the vitriolic “Comments” that I have received especially some of the personal remarks which are totally unwarranted and unnecessary. These are people who want me to publish their Comments as “anonymous” which means, to my way of thinking that they lack the courage to be identified.

I made it perfectly clear at the meeting that I support the Ordinariate and, in fact, co-ordinate the Redbridge and Havering Ordinariate Exploratory Group.

The pictures published below feature a leaflet which is still being given out to recruit potential members. It is quite clear in that leaflet, that the financial support afforded by CBS is for Anglicans. Those who have gone to the Ordinariate have ceased to be Anglicans and are now Ordinariate members. I personally am quite happy for grants being made to former Anglicans by CBS provided they are applied for in exactly the same way as has always been the case. Many of those who have gone to the Ordinariate have shown incredible courage in the steps they have taken and, in my opinion, are deserving of respect and where appropriate what ever help can be given. I stress that this is my view and not the view of some of those who attended the meeting.


  1. There is no excuse for the abuse you have suffered Father but looking from the sidelines, there appears to be a contradiction at the heart of this controversy. You write "It is quite clear in that leaflet, that the financial support afforded by CBS is for Anglicans" but reading the leaflet it is headed "The Confraternity exists for the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican tradition". That sounds like the Ordinariate to me.
    While Anglo Catholicism is being extinguished in the Anglican church, the Catholic church is offering a home in which the aims and objects would continue. Surely that should carry some weight.

  2. You wrote: "I have been surprised and dismayed at some of the vitriolic “Comments” that I have received..."

    Surprise is all too often the precursor of enlightenment and I hope that this will be the ultimate outcome in this case too.

    I confess to being one of the "anoymous" posters whose comments surprised you - but only because I had forgotten how to put up my name on your blog.

    Your first posts on the CBS "affaire" were unfortunate and sadly lacking in recognition of the reality of the situation in the Church of England where the holding of Catholic beliefs is becoming almost daily less possible.

    The CBS was founded for Catholic purposes - with particular reference to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament.

    Even assuming that any Anglican clergyman has the power to accomplish the miracle of transubstantiation, it will inevitably be the case by any Catholic or Orthodox canon of belief, that the orders of female bishops will not be valid and consequently nor will be the orders of any they purport to ordain.

    So increasingly, what will be contained in the tabernacles and ciboria provided by the CBS will be no more than bread, and the vessels provided for the enactment of the sacrifice of the mass will be at risk of employment in a meaningless charade.

    I appreciate that many "Catholic" clergy and parishes remain within the CofE pro tempore but for how long can that position be justified?

    As your diocesan has pointed out in his recent communication calling for liturgical conformity with CofE practice and canonical obedience from his clergy :-

    "So it is with some dismay that I have learned of the intentions of some clergy in the Diocese to follow instructions which have been addressed to the Roman Catholic Church and to adopt the new Roman eucharistic rites at Advent.

    The Pope has recently issued an invitation to Anglicans to move into full communion with the See of Rome in the Ordinariate where it is possible to enjoy the “Anglican patrimony” as full members of the Roman Catholic Church. Three priests in the Diocese have taken this step. They have followed their consciences.

    For those who remain there can be no logic in the claim to be offering the Eucharist in communion with the Roman Church which the adoption of the new rites would imply. In these rites there is not only a prayer for the Pope but the expression of a communion with him; a communion Pope Benedict XVI would certainly repudiate.

    At the same time rather than building on the hard won convergence of liturgical texts, the new Roman rite varies considerably from its predecessor and thus from Common Worship as well. The rationale for the changes is that the revised texts represent a more faithful translation of the Latin originals and are a return to more traditional language.

    Priests and parishes which do adopt the new rites – with their marked divergences from the ELLC texts and in the altered circumstances created by the Pope’s invitation to Anglicans to join the Ordinariate – are making a clear statement of their disassociation not only from the Church of England but from the Roman Communion as well. This is a pastoral unkindness to the laity and a serious canonical matter. The clergy involved have sworn oaths of canonical obedience as well as making their Declaration of Assent. I urge them not to create further disunity by adopting the new rites.

    In other words the "Not Wanted in this CofE Diocese" signs are going up for those who do hold Catholic beliefs. What is that going to do to liturgical practice at, for example, St Augustine's? Back to Common Worship?

    Your remarks and activities in relation to the CBS have caused great pain and offence to many and do call into question the sincerity of your support for the Ordinariate.

    Perhaps you will now try to see yourself as others see you and understand why those you reproach (including me) may have overreacted for which I, of course, apologise.

  3. Just to be correct the Bishop of London is not my Bishop; I live in Chelmsford Diocese and, framkly, what the Bishop of London says about the new Roman Rite is of no interest to me. I agree that the signs are going up "not wanted" in the CofE" however as has been made clear on many occasions the Ordinariate continues open for receiving members of the CofE when it is right for them. And I gather a secvond wave is expected next Lent

  4. Father, you say you understand that the signs are we are not wanted in the CofE. Which is surely the same as saying that the objects of CBS have no guaranteed future in the CofE. You say the ordinariate remains a permanent option and you are leading an exploration group. Yet when the CBS trusttes decide that, in order to secure a place where the objects can be fulfilled, it is prudent to make a grant to the ordinariate, you table a motion of no confidence in the trustees. Without that grant, the ordinariate may run out of funds before you make up your mind. The trusttes have done all they can to secure a future for us and you have undermined that!

  5. I have not undermined anything. I reiterate, once again,I have no problem with grants being made to the Ordinariate provided they are made in exactly the same way as grants have always been made. I think the meeting felt that Life Members and Associates should have been consulted in making such a massive grant - it was, after all, more than half of the total available funds. I agree Rose that the objects of CBS have no guaranteed future in the CofE so perhaps the right way forward is to disband CBS but I am also mindful that there are many sincere Catholics remaining in the Cof E at the moment, who are not able to take the Orinariate option.......what about them?

  6. But to consult all associates is not the normal way CBS grants are made,is it? I thought grants were awarded by the trustees and then publicised in the quarterly? The accounts for 2010 as put on facebook show the grant was less than half the assets. I have sympathy with the suggestion of dissolution but then the assets would need to be given to a charity which could maintain the objects and to date where is there such a charity other than the ordinariate? So I guess those staying woUld prefer not to dissolve so that the remaining funds can be used to help them?

  7. Dear Rose:

    It seems to me there is absolutely no present purpose in further debate on the CBS affaire.

    Some persons in the CofE have taken exception to the act of the trustees. As is their right, they have chosen to invoke the civil authorities: the Charities Commission and the matter may well end up in the civil courts. So, as far as I am concerned, the matter is sub judice. Either the act of the trustees will pass legal muster, or it will not. The owner of the blog is convinced of the rightness of his position. I think he is wrong but I've spent more that 40 years sitting in the Courts which is quite long enough to cause me to say that at the end of the day I may be wrong and he right. Time alone will tell.

    What I think is unseemly is for people to keep calling meetings and blogging about the issue while the matter is in process. It only brings the clergy involved into disrepute.

    Since we are agreed that the CofE has put up the "Not Wanted Here" signs for those who share Catholic beliefs, the issue for me is a pastoral one: what should those clergy within the CofE who share such beliefs and have the present care of souls be doing?