I have recently come across a new blog under the title of St Mary’s Hollywood: The Cold Case File, run by John Bruce, an erstwhile parishioner at St Mary of the Angels Church in Hollywood during the events of 2011 and 2012.
Naturally, this church in the western USA concerns me in no way, and I stay entirely outside the ongoing polemics.
What is of wider interest is some of the recent postings concerning historical aspects of the TAC. He makes use of the material I have provided on my website (The TAC Archive), postings from this blog and several other sources. Mr Bruce attempts to reason out the facts according to both evidence and conjecture. It is important that records remain of the events of the past five years which led to the downfall of Archbishop Hepworth and the fragmentation of those parts of the TAC that did not accept the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus and which furthermore did everything to demolish any attempt at maintaining some kind of middle “provisional ordinariate” provision.
There was a whole cross-section of clergy whose transition to the Roman Catholic Church was not simple in canonical terms, and who could have been treated with better pastoral outreach or simple courtesy. There was also a number of laity who would have needed longer to follow what was going on. With the branches being sawn away from under them, they could only make a precipitated decision to convert to the RC Church, follow the “new TAC” line (for want of a better term to describe a certain hermeneutic of rupture) or leave organised church Christianity altogether as some have doubtlessly done.
Again, there was fault on all sides and this is no place for binary thinking!
The new blog makes no provision for comments, which is understandable given the likelihood of troll attacks. Despite the continuing conflict concerning that church in Hollywood, I hope to see this blog produce objective and thoroughly researched work.
The Blue Flower 
Fr. Chadwick, the referral to Mr. Bruce’s weblog is appreciated, to be sure. John is a professional writer, retired from corporate America. I am certain that he will provide an objective journalist’s approach to the dissension at St. Mary’s, Hollywood, the DoW, the ACA and the TAC, as much as he is able to do so.
The treachery of the ACA bishops, the abrupt dissolution of the patrimony of the primate, and the obfuscation that assumed that all former members of the ACA were now again members of same display a violation of the pastoral concern that has been a hallmark of the Anglo-catholic ethos.
The metaphor that you use about the laity having the branches sawn out from underneath them is apropos, certainly, in the case of St. Mary’s, Hollywood. Your allusion reminds me also of our fateful ACA DoW synod of the summer of 2010. Bp. Williams wanted to know the mind of the diocese regarding unity with Rome through the ordinariate. Many, especially newcomers, were in favor; many were opposed; many others were unsure. I had the vague impression that, given more time and gentle persuasion, the majority of the diocese would have gone for the ordinariate. A pipe dream that will never come to fruition……
I have found your comments on Fr Smuts’ blog interesting, especially responding to the “advice” given to you from someone not a million miles from where I live saying that even if your first application had got blown into the tagliatelli alla carbonara or flew out of the office window into the Piazza San Pietro, you should try again and then wait for Godot!
That is the kind of nonsense I have had to deal with for years from some of our Roman Catholic friends. It is a little like the popular understanding of the legend of Marie Antoinette answering the complaint that the people had no bread – Let them eat cake!
Scylla and Charybdis indeed! The RC apologists on one side, and the New TAC on the other… Just keep going as best as you can. It’s all any of us can do…
Oh, for the cunning and courage of Odysseus!
I assume that every ACA/TAC local parish process and final decision regarding the Ordinariate was/is unique. Is always sad to see a local community tear itself apart, but these are most important matters that have to be taken most seriously. Being an outsider looking in, I found it pleasantly surprising at my local ACA church that they all seemed to take it both seriously and politely. They acted with dignity, respect and courtesy towards each other. And it didn’t appear that anyone was trying to take charge and lead a group one way or another. No one tried to force an outcome that they desired. In the end, they all appear to have stayed (even though a tiny minority did vote to join), except for the priest and his family; only 1 of the 3 clergy decided to join.
I’m sorry, but I find myself wondering what world the blog author inhabits. I’ve witnessed the same events as he, and lament at the confusion, misunderstanding, and clumsy actions I’ve seen on both (all?) sides. Self-righteous condemnation by any of the parties about any of the others is entirely out of place. His characterization of my diocese (The Northeast) is nothing short of bizarre. Did he bother to inquire, for instance, as to why the numbers seemed to fluctuate? Did he take note that there was a brief increase in numbers coming from the merely temporary joining of an APCK diocese and its bishop? Did he notice that the drop he perceives was a result of those same churches moving on to ACC? All that was a blip, temporary. Yes, some small and non-viable missions have closed. Others are being founded, and many parishes are growing. As Mark Twain once said, reports of our demise are somewhat exaggerated. With regard to the “Patrimony of the Primate” — well, I’m not going to question Hepworth’s motivation, but these particular actions of his, however intended, do raise interesting questions. Where did he obtain authority to establish a separate jurisdiction in the territory of a TAC member church? He may have felt it necessary, but it is at least arguable that the TAC concordat did not provide for any such thing. The churches involved in this “Patrimony” are all perfectly free to withdraw from TAC and perfectly free to band together in any way they should choose. If their desire is to enter the RC Ordinariate, ACA has already wished them godspeed and hold no rancor. The recent actions are only a recognition that the anomaly of being both part of and not part of ACA isn’t viable, especially after the resignation of the person responsible.
I hope I don’t sound like I’m doing special pleading here. ALL sides have made errors and acted wrongly. The Lord knows that I have a lot of complaints about this jurisdiction that I am a part of and that I do love. I have also enormous respect for those who differ with me and are willing to do so as friends and brethren. What I have no patience for is the constant bickering, the unceasing accusations, and the refusal to try to see the other viewpoint. Can’t the shouting stop? Can’t we be searching for the very best possible construction on the events we observe? Can’t we approach all this with a view to reconciliation, as much as may be possible? Apparently we can’t. Is God pleased with that?
From my point of view, I aim towards objectivity in the postings I present. I am all for working for peace, but not at the price of truth, justice and charity. I have no experience of the ACA apart from having met some of its bishops in England in October 2007. They seemed pleasant enough to me, as did the bishops from other countries.
You ask the question about the authority Archbishop Hepworth would have claimed to set up the Patrimony of the Primate. I would say that the entire TAC or the entire Continuum reposes on no authority. It didn’t receive any from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace or the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA. If you appeal to epkeia, then Archbishop Hepworth would have appealed to the same principle. Necessity knows no laws. No Continuing Church can claim institutional legitimacy or canonicity in relation to the Anglican Communion – they are all in schism. The exact parallel is the Old Catholic Church or the Society of St Pius X in relation to Rome. I have already written about sessionism (sessio et missio), and my convictions are known. If we operate schismatic churches, then we have a higher reason to do so than the mere observance of law or deference (or absence thereof) to authority. Otherwise we are truly in La-la land.
I’m all for reconciliation, but there are conditions. The recent kangaroo court was invalid legally and unjust, at least for those outside the closed group which was privy to the exact charges, deliberations, debates and reasoned conclusions. For as long as I have not read the charges and reasoned conclusions, I will not believe that “trial” had any validity. There is also a question over any claim to legitimate authority of the group of bishops concerned. While this kind of thing continues – as well as the aggressive attitude of some of our Roman Catholic friends – then there is no hope for peace and reconciliation.
I fear that the greatest obstacle to reconciliation will be repentance on the part of all concerned. And I think the first thing is to drop sessionist claims.
Yes, but the issue here is fidelity to what one has accepted as the legitimate working procedure. TAC insisted/insists on the authority of each national church within its recognized territory. That, with what I will grant to be good intentions, is just what Hepworth did not do.
Was it wrong? I’m not bold enough to say that. Was it necessary? Well, he and a number of others thought so. Perhaps so. Was it viable as an entity within TAC? I don’t think so. It was intended to be provisional and temporary, as well as outside the local jurisdiction. Was it viable within ACA? It never intended to be. It intended to be outside of, and, yes, in competition with the local ACA diocese. Was that necessarily wrong? I never said so. This kind of tension is bound to produce hard feelings.
As I said, those in transition, seeking entrance to the Ordinariate, are perfectly free to leave ACA, and perfectly free to create whatever transitional structure they think fit. It is only the weirdness of being both in and not in that I find disturbing.. Once Hepworth was gone (rightly or wrongly – I won’t even argue that) it made no sense whatever to continue a relationship that depended upon him personally. I hope they do now band together in a rational transitional structure, and I do wish them well.
And yes, repentance on all sides is the Gospel imperative, something we need to see in every group of Christians, and something we indeed see very little of.
In one way or another, we are ALL wrong, including me. If we don’t admit that, we will not merit the claim to be followers of Christ.
The problem is the concept of legitimacy. It may seem like mere semantics, but I think justifiable action is a better concept. Like that you don’t hold secret kangaroo courts – but rather try to reason out the whole thing and avoid the polarisation and binary thinking that happened between the Patrimony of the Primate (we may one day go over to Rome if the conditions are right) and the ACA (we will never go over to Rome and we want nothing to do with those who were involved in the Rome-bound movement).
In the end of the day, Abp Hepworth’s idea of a Fellowship of St Benedict was not a bad one. The idea came too late when the bitterness and either you’re for us or you’re against us had set in.
Now, any kind of “third position” is now dead and there are four alternatives:
– Go over to Rome,
– Join another church – Continuing Anglican, Old Catholic, Orthodox, etc.,
– Stay with the re-grouped TAC,
– Stop going to church and either be “spiritual but not religious” or kick the faith.
….. between the Patrimony of the Primate (we may one day go over to Rome if the conditions are right) and the ACA (we will never go over to Rome and we want nothing to do with those who were involved in the Rome-bound movement).
Respectfully, Father, I think you’ve mischaracterized both sides here.
The patrimony folks, I believe, conceived their entity to be one of separation from their former group (ACA) with a determination to go on to Rome, waiting for the dust to clear so they might know how to accomplish that. Whether realistic or not, that is how it was explained to me. I heard no doubt expressed as to the objective and no expectation other than soon.
ACA, on the other hand, has NOT said that we will never go over to Rome, but rather continues to aim for a unity with Rome (granted, on terms that it would take a miracle to produce). Moreover, we DO want to have much to do with those involved in the Rome-bound movement. It is the concept of being both separate from and within ACA/TAC that isn’t possible to continue. With ++Hepworth’s departure, moreover, there is no one interested in maintaining this ‘patrimony’ that was, after all, his personal endeavor.
There are no good guys and bad guys in all this. There are brethren who see things a bit differently. Why is it that we (even, or especially Christians) feel such a need to demonize our “opponents” and attribute the worst possible motives to the “others”.? Can we not recognize the possibility that there are men of good will on both “sides”, doing the best they know how, even if they are making multiple mistakes in the process? The tragedy is that neither party seems able to do that.
And, yes, ++Hepworth’s afterthought of a Fellowship of St. Benedict would have been a far better route (in my estimation) than the rather questionable setting up of a “prodiocese” under his “patrimony”. Unfortunately such a choice was not made in time to have an effect.
I think arguments about legitimacy and sessionism are really beside the point. What is, is. We are faced with a splintered Christianity, a situation Our Lord surely does not approve, We are faced with the imperative that Christians must be one in more than just theory. There’s only one way to answer this — and that is by a sincere repentance on all sides and a real willingness to find Hod’s guidance through the minefield. That is true for the smallest “independent” group and just as true for the RC behemoth. Lord have mercy on us all.