I told you not to be surprised

I think of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) as a faux church (some comments here and then again here )
I have commented more than once that I would like someone to challenge their use of the term "Anglican Communion" and indeed the word "Traditional" in juxtaposition.
There can only be one meaning of the expression Traditional Anglican Communion....and that is churches which see their roots in the Church of England and continue in Communion with that Church...and particularly as represented by its chief bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Clearly the so called TAC (which may see its roots in the C of E) has severed its communion with Canterbury...the most traditional link with Anglicanism!
Any way, it's falling apart!
In the last couple of weeks a majority of TAC bishops have met and voted out their Primate (who happens to live within my parish boundaries) John Hepworth.
Mr Hepworth (as the Roman Catholic Church of which he was once a member seems intent on calling him) along with his long term amigo John Fleming (a former Anglican priest who became a Roman Catholic) who has had his own troubles of late (see here..and then have a Google....but currently tied up in the courts)....well they have always been intent on claiming credit for the so-called Anglican Ordinariate (see a tangled web here)
Finally....Hepworth has been deposed. Of course he claims that the majority of Bishops had no right to do it.
But I was interested to hear conservative Anglican commentator David Virtue the so-called and self-declared "Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism" at least admitted on ABC Radio that the outlandish claim that the TAC had 400,000 adherents worldwide was always fanciful. He exposes some other bizarre issues here in his account of Hepworth's deposition.
A great churchman once said to me about breakaway churches "Once they've broken away, it's only a matter of time before they split and split again!"  These words have been proved to be very prescient.

More remarkable

I am glad that the stuff about Xenophon and Hepworth is sort of petering out (see my original blog).
Alexander Downer would no doubt be bemused to find that I agree with him about anything, but writing in the Murdoch Press today he has a fairly measured analysis of the process and principles of the use of Parliamentary privilege to name individuals.
Perhaps one highlight of his article is detailing his drive in southern Cyprus and coming across the church of St Xenophon! It's easy for all of us to make barbed comments.
Reflecting on Sunday last on the need for Christians to reflect the generosity of God I said (perhaps tongue in cheek) to one of my parishioner-friends that I had been unusually generous during this week of confusing controversy about John Hepworth. I noted that in the first conversation I had with anyone about the sad state of affairs I had to say to a bunch of fairly aggro-people that we needed to remember that the first principle of abuse is that we presume the alleged victim is not making this up.
Now, I recognised that this required of me an openness to Hepworth that I may not always have had. He is a very difficult person to like if you are not on the same side. But that is probably not the point.
His appearances in the media have not been pleasant to watch and listen to, Julia Baird did a very skilful interview on on ABC radio's Sunday Profile last night....this can be heard here.

De rigueur

It is difficult to turn the news on and not be struck by the fact that we are obsessing once again about refugees.

I was even interested to hear John Hepworth rattling on to a recent meeting of Forward in Faith (FiF) in England, FiF is a reactionary organization within the Anglican Communion principally opposed to the ordination of women priests and bishops.

Hepworth is not a member of the Anglican Communion, but leader of the TAC, a rag-tag group of former Anglicans. He is talking to these "Fathers" (for such they were) shortly after the Vatican has told the Anglican Church that it will set up an "ordinariate" for Anglicans which will allow the disaffected to become members of the Roman Catholic Church whilst looking ostensibly Anglican.

There are certain ironies about this. While some FiF members are absolutely delighted to be allowed to be Anglicans in the Roman Church, many...perhaps most .....of them have practised being more Roman than the Romans whilst Anglicans. We used to joke to Romans that if you actually wanted to see how Mass should be celebrated well, then go to your local Anglican Church if they happened to be Anglo-Catholic in persuasion.

Anyway, the point of this blog! Is that Hepworth's little peroration (audio of 3 different continuing Bishops including Hepworth here) is highly infused with the language of refugees.

His imagery is that the Vatican has issued refugee visas to Anglicans, and he insists that such visas will be operational for quite a long period...he suggests 300 years.

What of course he also neglects to mention is that it has taken the Curia 300 years to get round to issuing them in the first place.

Ahhhh! Interesting times....for some!

Oh the intrigue!

Most people will not be in the slightest bit bothered about the latest round of gamesmanship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.
This week Mr Ratzinger announced he would appoint an 'ordinariate' (you have to love the language) for disaffected Anglicans who want to become RC but who don't really want to stop being Anglican... well maybe that's what it said... quite a lot of these people are "closet Romans" who for various reasons have lacked the opportunity/gumption/clout/guts to leave the Ecclesia Anglicana and become Roman Catholics. Not the least of the reasons for doing this might be that Anglican clergy are often, even usually, married. So if you want to become (or remain) a priest this presents a minor difficulty. I say 'minor' because in the end nothing defeats the bureaucracy of the Roman Church...even its owns rules (Ask Henry VIII)
So there are a wide range of people who might be interested in this proposition
1. Those who have already separated themselves. The so-called Continuing Anglican Churches for example. They appear to have been wetting themselves to get back into the flock. Their current leader actually resides in my parish (I have blogged of him here). "Archbishop" Hepworth happens to have been a Roman Catholic priest who became an Anglican and then who left and joined the splinter Church. He claims to lead a worldwide group of 400,000 disaffected Anglicans.
This in itself is an interesting figure, I would be interested to see how they arrive at such a figure. And particularly interested to see them substantiated in some properly audited way.
I have my doubts!
Some of the members of that church have colourful pasts, and are perhaps a little fractious and argumentative (aren't we all). I wonder if the Romish Church knows it all! I suspect they know more than they let on.
2. Disaffected Roman Catholics There was a titillating suggestion that a whole host of Roman Catholics who would have been priests may now try to enter through the Anglican Ordinariate. This would be amsuing!
3. What of the loyal Catholics? I remember a dear RC colleague telling me of how many fine male friends she had who would have made wonderful priests, and who felt saddened when Anglicans who were married were able to do what they were forbidden to do because they were loyal to the Holy See.
4. What of the complicated marriages? As one whose marriage fell on hard times what would the Roman Church make of people like me. I could (indeed do) function as a celibate person. Though technically married, surely separated Anglicans (continuing or otherwise) would be eligible to join this ordinariate as long as they didn't marry again.
Or what of those whose may have been divorced and remarried, perhaps even had their marriages 'annulled' by a schismatic continuing Church and then got married again. There are probably some of those.
I can actually think of three lots of former Anglicasn who became RC, all of their marital (and other) relationships appear to have been stressed. Even become irregular and dysfunctional
I just hope the Vatican knows what it is letting itself in for.

Let's confess!

A very nasty case that is before the courts at the moment of alleged sexual abuse by a former Anglican priest (see here for The Australian's report) reminds us all that the ground has shifted in the reporting of these matters.
There is a bizarre caricature that alleged perpetrators might "confess" their sins to an authority figure and thus render the matter confidential. In an Adelaide court 'Archbishop' John Hepworth, a former Roman Catholic priest, and then Anglican priest...but now the leader of one of the many splinter groups (see here for a former blog about this) formed in the reaction to a whole range of issues...particularly the ordination fo women to the priesthood...
Any way Hepworth gave testimony at the trial revealing details of a phone conversation which once upon a time might have been considered privileged. I do not need to go into the nastiness of it here.
What is now the case is that people (by and large) cannot now claim that any conversation with a priest is 'confession' by definition.
To be covered under 'the seal of the confessional' the matter must be a deliberate and intentional confession, stated to be so before the event and not afterwards.
Some of the Anglican Church's guidelines (I don't know about Hepworth's mob...) suggest that in matters to do with child abuse that the 'seal' no longer holds any way. This has yet to be tested, but there is some sympathy with the idea that mandatory notification now extends into the confessional. (I would find this idea difficult and hope personally that I never have to test it)
This stuff is awful. But I think weare trying to take it seriously.

When, I ask, will the State actually adopt the same scrutiny to schools and institutions that it demands (and rightly) of the Churches.

Christian and Anglican and Catholic and Traditional and ......

I am happy to use all the above nomenclature to describe myself, though some would have thoughts on whether I fit some, any or all of these descriptive categories.
But that's by the way.
I had an interesting conversation yesterday with John Hepworth, former Roman Catholic priest, former Anglican priest and now the 'Archbishop' of the so-called 'Traditional Anglican Communion'(here).
We were both emptying our mail boxes at Blackwood Post Office! Hepworth actually lives within the geographical bounds of my parish, and has a small conventicle which ironically (but perhaps prophetically) used to be a Congregational Church!
The church now styled, strangely, St Etheldreda in the Hills reflects, I suspect, Hepworth's fascination with the quaint ways of Anglicanism. It has a sign outside which indeed says "Traditional Anglican Communion"; a euphemism for one of the groups of breakaway churches of the last three decades. My question is how can a church which has broken away from its roots describe itself as 'traditional', how can a church which is clearly not in communion with the See of Canterbury describe itself as 'Anglican' (No! Hepworth did not get an invitation to Lambeth); and which actually defines itself by removing itself from the 'Communion' be so described.(I have railed about this before..here)
On a pragmatic level I constantly get asked what St E's is all about, and have to tell folk that it's nothing to do with me...I tell them to go and have a look and suspect that most traditional Anglicans of my ilk would find little that would sit comfortably with their sense of being Anglican at all. They are of course anti-women's ordination. They seem to be opposed to modern language liturgy. And they like to dress-up!
Hepworth (strangely, given his origins) aggressively seems to court the Roman Catholic Church...and what he styles "the now famous letter" to the Holy See to seek some sort of recognition for his mob from the Roman Catholic Church is apparently the substance of active consideration in and around, before or after the Lambeth Conference.
I have no way of knowing how seriously the Roman Communion takes that letter, or how concerned they might be about taking Hepworth(and others) back into their bosom
In his inimitable way he talks of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope as 'Rowan' and 'Benedict' respectively, as though the three of them are equals.
Which I imagine in his mind they might be!