The Continuity of Continuing Anglicanism

 

Why continuity is vitally important for what it means to be human.

Why doesn't the Anglican Catholic Church join the Ordinariate

 

Why Blessed Elzabeth Barton shows why the ACC cannot be part of the Anglican Patrimony within the Roman Catholic Church.

Anglican Catholic Vocations

Do you feel called to ministry? Might that ministry be in the Anglican Catholic Church Diocese of the United Kingdom?

Anglican Catholic Bishops

 

Why unity is a key principle for episcopacy.

Why is there a DUK?

The Anglican Catholic Diocese of the United Kingdom has existed for thirty years now. For such a small church which has seen much upheaval in those thirty years, it is an example of God’s grace that we are still here. But why are we here?

There have been several occasions now in which I have been asked why the Anglican Catholic Church needs a Diocese in the United Kingdom. I am often pointed to the existence of the Free Church of England, the Anglican Ordinariate and the Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda (hereafter known as The Society) within the Church of England.

With the greatest respect to the Free Church of England, their original existence came about as a protest against the growing Ritualism within the Church of England which developed into the Anglo-Catholic Movement. Since the Anglican Catholic Church shares its heritage with the Anglo-Catholics of the nineteenth century to the extent that, through following the Affirmation of St Louis, we hold to the authority of the Early Church of the First Millennium over the Protestant doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer, it would be somewhat of a discourtesy for us Anglican Catholics to insist that the FCE do the same. This obviously does not prevent any respect and openness to discussion between the ACC and the FCE but such a discussion would have to be mindful of the differences between the classical Anglican Formularies and the Affirmation of St Louis.

With the greatest respect to the members of the Anglican Ordinariate, the fact of the matter is that, insofar as they accept the doctrines of the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope, his infallibility and the invalidity of Anglican Orders, they are de facto Roman Catholics who use a version of the Anglican Liturgy conformed to the Roman Catholic standards. While this may preserve the ethos of being Anglican, we believe that this hides the actual Romanism which, in the same way as the Eastern Orthodox Church, we cannot share. This is not to say that we cannot be congenial and respectful of our brothers and sisters who have taken advantage of the late Pope Benedict’s generous offer.

With the greatest respect to the Society, we simply cannot be in communion with the Church of England. First, in administering the sacraments, every priest must intend to do what the Church has always intended to do. Given that the Society is part of the Church of England and the Church of England intends to equate male and female priests contrary to Catholic teaching, by being in communion with the Church of England, any clergyman is accepting the intention of that Church as his own. Crossing his fingers and saying, “I’m intending to do what the Catholic Church has always done” isn’t enough because by remaining in communion with the CofE is tacitly affirming the CofE’s intention which is not Catholic. While this does not  render all sacraments invalid, it does render the CofE schismatic from the Catholic Church she was part of until she altered the sacraments. Until the Society does indeed leave the communion of the CofE, we cannot be in communion for then we would be suffering from the same defect of intention and acceptance of schismatic theology. Further, it is also important to know that in the recent vote in General Synod to approve the form of blessing of a couple of the same sex, Bishop Warner of Chichester voted for the approval while Bishop North abstained. The Bishops of the Society have issued the statement here. While the Synod stated clearly that marriage is between one man and one woman, the approval of blessing that which cannot be blessed again raises the question of whether the Society intends to do what the Catholic Church has always done or whether it intends to do what the CofE authorises. Of course, we aim to be on good terms with the Society and its members and wish them to have the space to flourish in the direction that the feel called. Given that we have been personae non gratae at the Shrine of Walsingham , it is clear that we need to learn to understand each other better.

Our Diocese has formed, like the rest of the ACC, in response to the alteration to the sacraments by the Church of England. Since then, we have discovered that we do have a robust expression of truly Catholic theology that has come about throughout our history and association with the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. I hope soon to be publishing further material which demonstrates that theology, why we hold it, and why it is a natural expression of proper Anglican Catholicism in the British Isle. Do please check out The Meaning of Anglican Catholicism in which I begin charting this theology.

Nonetheless, the FCE, the Ordinariate and the Society have my prayers, fraternal greetings and good wishes as they follow the Way, Truth and Life.

Approaching Meribah in Lent

 

How do we cope with bitterness?

On Breaking Communion

I note that Anglican Communion is finally showing the same sorts of signs of breaking up as after the Congress of St Louis. Following the changes to the sacraments, the emerging body (which was originally called the Anglican Church in North America, of all things) stated that it was no longer in communion with those Anglican provinces who accepted the alterations to the sacraments but with those that did not.

In principle, then, the Continuing Churches were still in communion with the CofE until the CofE voted to alter the sacraments in 1992. It seems to me that, at this point in breaking with the primus inter pares, the ACC has not pursued communion even with those provinces in the Anglican Communion who have remained orthodox. I don't seem to be able to find a formal statement other than that recorded in the Affirmation of St Louis that communion between orthodox provinces and the churches of the Affirmation should be maintained. Given the lack of interest from the Anglican Communion towards Continuing Anglicanism, I rather think that the relationship between orthodox Anglican churches both in the Communion and in the Continuum has lapsed rather than broken completely. Of course, as a johnny-come-lately to the ACC, I cannot claim that this is the case and I hope those of longer standing would correct me on the issue.

It would make sense though if the new ACNA would follow a similar trajectory. The old ACNA broke up over churchmanship with the Old High Protestants moving into the UECNA and the Anglo-Catholics into the APCK and what we now know as the G3. The fact that the G3 is a reunion of splits subsequent to the initial shows that reunion between bodies is possible and, speaking personally, mandatory.

Given that there are bodies that predate the Continuum, such as the Orthodox Anglican Church (OAC), possess a history and a continuity and integrity which should be respected, I would hope that other realignments are possible. This is why I regard the REC, the OAC and such like as Continuing Churches even though they have different origins. What needs to be examined, however, is whether communion has actually been broken. Could an OAC priest receive communion in a UECNA parish, for example? It would seem that they could. What may not happen, however, is the mutual recognition of authority of bishops and synods. A canon passed in the OAC is not binding on the UECNA, and vice versa.

This latter point is the key to an organic unity: a canon proposed in the ACC would require the relevant approval from the APA and the ACA. The concordat of Communicatio in Sacris allows for the transferability of clergy: each clergyman in the G3 is considered regular as well as valid and licit.

For the ACC, the orders of the Anglican Communion suffer from a dubiousness on the grounds of the altered sacrament. Alter a sacrament in its matter or intention and it becomes invalid. Any clergyman who comes to the ACC from the CofE is ordained sub conditione in order to remove this doubt and confer a more robust regularity. Any clergyman who values the Catholic nature of the sacraments will appreciate the necessity of doing so.

In the case of the GSFA declaring broken communion with the CofE, it is interesting to note that their impediment is not along the lines of sacramental ontology as in the case of the Congress of St Louis, nor along the strength of interpretive framework such as the rôle of the classical Anglican Formularies in the case of the REC or OAC, but rather of morals. The CofE states that it has not changed its doctrine on what marriage is but is recognising the "holiness" of same-sex partnerships.

As far as I know the UECNA and APCK are still Communicatio in Sacris with the ACC, though the UECNA has rather distanced itself from the rest since it places the Formularies over the Affirmation. I think this is a rather recent development in the 45 year history of the Continuum.

Ut unum sint is Our Lord's prayer for His Church. That is something we should strive for with the Grace of God. I believe wholeheartedly in the integrity of Anglican Catholic doctrine which is exemplified within the G3 and, very probably, further. If that unity is to be achieved then humility and charity must be paramount. Failures must be recognised, the modern malaise of "being offended" exorcised and forgiveness freely and humbly available. 

We should be most wary of pretence and pretentiousness. There are too many episcopi vagantes whose position is down to having been "offended" by their original jurisdiction and now claim to have a greater validity than where they have come from. Clandestine motives and political machinations have no place in a Church that is completely devoted to the Truth.

I pray that we may all be one because that is what my Lord and Master exhorts me to pray. May the Lord unite us in His Spirit for His service.

Anglican Catholic Orders: a brief outline

 

How do Anglican Catholic Orders fit with the wider Catholic Church?

Again: no polemics will be entertained either way!

St Bruno and Continuing Anglican Community

 

Is there a way of bridging the gap between individuals and communities?

What should you expect of the Anglican Catholic Church, part the second

 

Addressing members of the Continuum, how do we reach the people who need us?

DUK Birthday Preparations

 Very shortly, the little Diocese to which I belong will be thirty years old and I am truly grateful to God that we are still here and in rude health. Given our ups and downs, I see it as a true grace of God that we remain. I do my best to defend my Diocese from its many detractors but, truth be told, I am not very clever. Indeed, my lack of learning in Canon Law is quite embarrassing and something that I desperately need to improve upon. As a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church, I am often asked about my relationship with the “Anglican Communion” and I have to answer that, along with former Archbishop Rowan Williams, there is no longer a consensus as to what the “Anglican Communion” is. Bishop Williams likens it more to a (dysfunctional) family. So how do I understand the separation of the ACC from ECUSA in 1978? I shall try to give an answer, though I suspect I will be corrected by those who know better either by virtue of knowledge or by experience of actually being part of that wonderful Congress. In what follows, I use the word “heresy” in its technical sense of departure from the Catholic Faith. I have no wish to vilify any single human being in doing so and am content that, if one calls oneself Catholic I will recognise them as such until they demonstrate evidence to the contrary. For the record: as is very well known to my readers, I believe the attempt to ordain women to the sacred priesthood is heretical.

Let me begin at the middle of the beginning. The Continuing Anglican Churches owe their existence to Bishop Albert Chambers, former bishop of Springfield, Bishop Francisco Pagtakhan, Bishop Charles Boynton and Bishop Mark Pae. Although only Bishops Chambers and Pagtakhan consecrated Bishop Charles Doran, Bishops Pae and Boynton sent their consent via letter. Here it is to be noted that  Apostolic Canon I, together with evidence from St Bede in his Ecclesiastical History states that it is possible for valid Catholic Orders to be conveyed by fewer than three bishops onto the consecrand. This may be a departure from the norm for Post-Reformational Anglicanism but not for Pre-Reformational Anglicanism which the ACC also seeks to continue. If Anglicanism itself seeks to continue the Early Church, as evidenced in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, and the Apostolic Canons are part of the Early Church then the Apostolic Canons are part of Anglicanism. If the ACC intends to continue Anglicanism (albeit as the legitimate continuation of the Oxford Movement) then the Apostolic Canons are part of the Continuing Anglicanism. Following the Canons of the Council of Nicaea, three bishops are the norm but the sacrament is certainly validly conferred by two. St Bede’s evidence shows how it is possible that a letter of consent (in this case by the Bishop of Rome) makes up for there being fewer than three. Given the political pressures and ill-health on Bishops Boynton and Pae for their inability to attend physically, their intention is clear and the Chambers’ succession is valid.

What about the vexed question of jurisdiction. Well, first, one may legitimately ask what is meant by “jurisdiction”. According to Rhidian Jones’ Handbook of the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (T&T Clarke 2000) this is the power of governance. Is this power conferred on the bishop at his consecration as part of the sacrament, or is it merely a legal assent by the Church? Can a bishop lose that power by virtue of retirement which is a legal state and not a sacramental state?

Bishop Chambers certainly once possessed ecclesial jurisdiction as Bishop of Springfield. If the power conferred to him is part of the grace of the Sacrament of Episcopal Ordination which may not be repeated and places an indelible character on the recipient, then Bishop Chambers could never lose that power and this means that “Personal Jurisdiction” is meaningful for a Catholic and Anglican, since it is the Church’s recognition of that Episcopal Grace embodied in the person of Bishop Chambers. By what authority could this grace be laid aside if it is indelible?

If the power conferred is merely legal, then “Personal Jurisdiction” becomes the recognition of the authority of the bishop by the faithful. In the event of an heretical or schismatic bishop, the nearest orthodox bishop becomes the authority as attested in Canon III of the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus. This is in accordance with the definition of Catholicism as put forward by St Ignatius of Antioch and St Cyril of Jerusalem who understand the Church as being the people gathered around orthodox bishops faithful to the Catholic Faith. Any ecclesial body that possesses no orthodox bishop cannot be properly Catholic even though it may be faithful in its intention to worship the Risen Lord. In either situation, the idea of “Personal Jurisdiction” is well-defined and well-founded.

While the General Convention of ECUSA had legitimised heresy, not all bishops immediately consented to this act. Thus the Affirmation of St Louis contains the statement that:

“We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. WHEREFORE, with a firm trust in Divine Providence, and before Almighty God and all the company of heaven, we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto.”

This requirement was dropped when, in 1994, the See of Canterbury ordained women as priests for the first time. Incidentally, this is when Bishop Br John-Charles Vockler was received into the ACC in his episcopal orders and became its archbishop in due course.

Nonetheless, the clear intention of the then-ACNA-now-Continuum was to remain in communion with ECUSA as far as it could. Thus although Chambers et al, did not officially join the ACC, the ACC was still in communion with the orthodox parts of ECUSA. Thus there was no repudiation of jurisdiction on the part of Bishop Chambers et al. because members of the Continuum still saw themselves as part of the orthodox ECUSA. Likewise, with Archbishop Vockler, the legitimacy of the ACC was strengthened as the See of Canterbury fell to heresy and he was received into the ACC. Archbishop Vockler was the Chief Consecrator of Bishop Rommie Starks who, in turn, consecrated Bishop Damien Mead who ordained me nearly a decade ago.

This, to me represents the legitimacy of our walking apart from the Anglican Communion. Others may disagree but I must assume that they have their own understanding of Christian integrity. There are many Christians out there who do not see things the way I do but, as the Affirmation of St Louis states, we each have to take responsibility for the state of our souls. If I can be of any spiritual help then I will endeavour to do my best. I still remain committed to the growth and health of my Diocese and my Church which I truly love.

 

Telescopes and Microscopes

 

A reflection on how we have to be able to look at the big and the small simultaneously.

Ten years: grief and joy

Today I celebrate ten years since I joined the Anglican Catholic Church. In leaving the CofE behind, I left behind much of what I loved. I miss the buildings, the choral tradition and the sense of being a part of English history and establishment. I also very much miss being in communion with old friends.

In many ways, though, it was me that was left behind as the CofE showed me clearly that our paths were markedly different. A DDO said of me that I was "loyal to a church that had passed away." I have come to realise that he was right. So, when the last straw fell onto the most preponderous pile that had grown, and I was forbidden from proclaiming the incarnation of the Lord - the core doctrine of the Church - at Evening Prayer in the words of the Angelus by a Rural Dean who was clear in her desire to eradicate all dissent, I finally allowed the CofE that I loved to pass away from me.

Joy always involves a death somewhere along the line: a moment of realisation that heaviness and heartache are not permanent and that we can be free to live. That moment of liberation in joy is exhilarating and terrifying. 

And so, even in the midst of death, I dare to rejoice because ten years ago I found my new home, and it looked like the old one. I found new friends and a new reason to carry on worshipping in the way that I was used to. I look back and realise that I have grown so much in those ten years. All has changed and for the better - well, not everything has changed. The Church has not changed and the ACC reflects that. 

Despite the lack of buildings, despite the fewness of members, despite the lack of choirs and concomitant triumphant pipe organs, it is the Church of England that I was once part of. It is the Church of England that I was told had passed away. My studies and research show that it is built upon surer and sounder foundations than the CofE.

I still look back and mourn the passing of the church that I once belonged to. Mourning is important because it shows that one still loves what has gone, and love is the key to living.

But, for the Christian, there is also the challenge, the almost obscene double-dare to rejoice in the face of grief because of the fact of Resurrection. The Christian lives with conflicting emotions and is almost torn apart by them: we weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice. We weep through love of neighbour, we rejoice through love of God.

As I watch my old church tear itself to bits, turn its churches into theme parks, close its choirs and allow the words of other religions to be read in its pulpit, I am sorrowful because I remember what she was and want my son who loves "church" to have the same experiences that I had and loved. I grieve with others who grieve, especially with those who have lost so much more than I have.

On the other hand, I rejoice because ten years ago, I was given hope and growth and a new potential to actualise. I have seen Missions open and close, but still the Anglican Catholic Church remains despite me being in it. I have studied it with the little faculties of reason God gave me, and it makes sense - more sense than the church that passed away from me. 

So, in the midst of hard work, in the midst of loss, in the midst of painful sacrifices, I rejoice heartily because I have much to be grateful for and much to look forward to.

One day, the double doors of the horizon will be flung open for me and its bolts unlocked. That will mean the same pain at leaving and the same joy of the great hereafter. My Church preaches that hope, and I rejoice in that.

St Augustine and the Anglican Catholic Church

 

A reflection on how St Augustine's Mission is continued in the Anglican Catholic Church.

The Will, the Communion and the ACC

 

A reflection on the relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Catholic Church.

Parsons versus Fletcher

Stephen Parsons of Surviving Church writes:

"One of the weaknesses of conservative Christianity is the claim that there is only a single version of truth and teaching. There is a single way of reading the Bible and the leaders and their group possess it and proclaim it. This ‘truth’ is completely above any need to debate or even discuss. Such a claim is extraordinary when we think about it. It totally ignores the wide variety of cultural and historical manifestations of Christianity that exist. The expression the Bible ‘clearly teaches’ is also palpable nonsense for those who actually take the trouble to read the text for themselves. Consistency and clarity are not there to be found in the Bible, but only in the imagination of one who keeps the book firmly closed. Only in the context of a carefully supervised reading of selected passages during a sermon on Sunday mornings, can this illusion of coherence and consistency be maintained. For the rest of us who study it for ourselves with the help of commentaries, the Bible turns out to be a highly complex work, full of insight, nuance, paradox and mystery but not clarity. It does not suddenly become easy to understand, just because a preacher declares it to be the infallible word of God and makes numerous selected quotes to back up a line of teaching."

Of course, Mr Parsons is reacting to the deeply troubling abuse to be found committed by Jonathan Fletcher, a Conservative Evangelical who has been a leading figure in the CofE, and whose behaviour towards those in his care has been appalling.

Mr Parsons' view of Conservative Christianity is coloured by his rejection of abuse. He sees Evangelical interpretation of scripture as being more absolute than Is justified by history and culture.

I must confess to sharing the dis-ease with certain groups of Evangelicals who act as if the first 1500 years of the Church never happened. My main worry is that Mr Parsons is doing something similar.

Mr Parsons is saying that history and culture need to be involved in interpreting Holy Scripture and yet he does not say which version of history and culture he is using. There are different histories and different cultures. There is a version of history that says that women were ordained Catholic priests from the word go but their ministry was suppressed by a misogynistic regime. There is another version of history that says that the only women to be ordained in the Early Church were ordained in the Montanist sect. Likewise, we can read scripture in our own culture but this is vastly different from the culture of Africa where persecution is very, very real. To say that Conservative Evangelicals ignore 1500 years of Christianity on the grounds that they do not take into account other histories and cultures is to ignore the context of the Bible and the Church in which it grew up and influenced.

If one must take into account other cultures, then one must allow slavery, otherwise one is imposing one's culture of anti-slavery. Why is one right and the other wrong? Why is slavery obviously wrong in all cultures if one believes that another's culture should be respected.

Mr Parsons is setting up his own interpretation of Holy Scripture up against Mr Fletcher's under the assumption that his is right and Fletcher's is wrong. To what authority is Mr Parsons appealing? I suspect that he chooses the commentaries and studies that "challenge the system" which is all well and good but on what authority do they challenge the system. This seems more inconsistent and incoherent to me than Biblical Literalism because the only authority that is appealed to is one's own which is a bit problematic when one is supposed to be appealing to God's authority.

This is why I find Catholicism much more appealing. St Vincent of Lérins explains that Christian Doctrine develops organically and thus transcends History and Culture. The Bible has a context within the Church. While there are a lot of interpretations of the text they differ, not in doctrine, but in sense. I do not believe that the Bible is always literally true but rather that it is theologically inerrant which must take into account other senses than just the literal. The Catholic Church as a whole has been given the charisma of interpreting doctrine.

It is true that there is plenty of wiggle room, especially in the doctrines of eschatology, atonement and anthropology which are without clear position. However, the moral theology has more consensus than Mr Parsons will allow and, if Mr Fletcher is guilty of abuse (which is true) then Mr Parsons is guilty of promoting a morality based on emotional need and the authority of the present moral culture rather than that found in Christ's Church. To say that the idea of clear teaching in Holy Scripture is "palpable nonsense" is to cut off the branch on which one sits.

Mr Parsons is typical of those who follow the Liberal Christianity which I doubt to be properly Christian. He is as guilty of pushing his moral superiority as Mr Fletcher and his ilk. Both will rely on their own authority than submit to the Catholic Faith. Then again, perhaps they will say the same of me. 

Why should the Anglican Catholic Church grow?

 A reflection on what we are trying to achieve when we say we want the church to grow.

When Controversy calls

 

A reflection on controversial saints and controversial decisions.

What is the Anglican Catholic Church?

 A brief description of what the Anglican Catholic Church is.

Blogday 2020: Communication, Communion and Common Prayer

As usual, today I reflect on this little blogling which has now attained the age of fifteen. 2020 has not been a kind year to many of us, and it's rather been like a teenager spending his free hours walled up in his bedroom. An interesting biological fact is that puberty kills off a lot of connections in the brain which enable communication skills. This is why communicable eleven year olds turn into  monosyllabic teenagers.

This has not been a good year for communication. First, as is evidenced by the American Election in the US and Brexit in the UK, people are becoming ideologically divided, and this has ramifications on how we communicate with each other. Some communication is already being stifled in order to cease causing offence to others or inadvertently stray into "hate speech" - a term which still lacks a coherent objective definition. There is a risk that those who are offended by another's words may call on "hate speech" legislation. This is already taking place. We are also seeing increasing violence as people of different ideologies are beginning to clash, especially at political demonstrations.

Secondly, the restrictions in movement and COVID have pushed more communication online where anonymity creates a veil behind which "trolls" thrive. By "troll", I mean one who has the full intent to offend or upset. Here I think of the dreadful comments made about the Duchess of Sussex following her miscarriage. Rather than comfort a woman in mourning, words were used to harm.

A troll is not the same as someone with an intent to challenge another's worldview. If we publicly express an opinion then we must be prepared to allow others to challenge it fundamentally and even robustly.

We are indeed free to say what we wish to say, but all rights have responsibilities as the other side of the same coin. If we tell a joke then our intent should be to make people laugh and not to injure. Yet, many a true word is spoken in jest, and satire has a value in waking us from complacency to a hidden reality to our condition. We have to be careful what the object of our lampooning is. We also have to be careful to see any offence that we take for what it is. At all stages of humour, as I said earlier this year, there must be the unconditional love that thinks the best of another's motives until evidence presents itself to demonstrate their ill-intent. This is based on the fundamental principle of law of "innocent until proven guilty".

Mr Biden seeks to unify an America broken by ideological conflict. He will only do this if he has a principle that both sides of the ideological barrier can accept. Just appealing to "truth, justice and the American Way" is no longer possible if people are now questioning whose truth, whose justice and which American Way.

The Continuing Anglican world might also be similarly divided. Remember, not every Anglican Church can properly call itself "Continuing Anglican" unless it has been born from the Congress of St Louis for that is the moment of the term's definition. For example, the Orthodox Anglican Church doesn't really call itself "Continuing Anglican", even though it does continue what the Lambeth Communion has ceased to practise, because its origins predate St Louis. I will therefore be concentrating on the jurisdictions I know within the Continuing Anglican movement and assume that other extra-Lambeth Anglican Christians supply their own mutatis mutandis.

By the early 1980s divisions occurred within the emerging Continuing Church which resulted in three different jurisdictions and there were further divisions in the 1990s. Yet, by 2017, these jurisdictions are working towards a greater organic unity. It will still take time. That's okay. Good things take time to do well.

At the heart, there is a unifying principle in the Book of Common Prayer, and it is this that holds it together. Continuing Anglicans live out the "Common" part of the Book of Common Prayer and this means we have a good degree of affinity. 

Of course there are details that produce some diversity. Which BCP do we use? For the American Churches, this is easy. The book that was in use before ECUSA started going doctrinally wobbly was the 1928 BCP and did the job, replacing some of the elements that the 1789 BCP omitted, like the Athanasian Creed. Yet, for the movement to grow there needs to be an appreciation of local history, culture and custom. In the UK, we don't have the same history as the US and, as a result, the equivalent Prayer Book is the 1662 BCP which has a rather truncated canon of the Mass. That truncation is not enough in itself to invalidate the Mass but it is enough to produce confusion about the central aspect of Communion, namely the Real and Objective Presence of Christ in the Mass and therefore cause doubt and unease among Anglican Catholics who see as full communion as possible with Christ as central to the life of the Church. It leaves out too much to express adequately what the Catholic Church believes.

 For Protestants who prefer some ambiguity about the objectivity of the Holy Presence, this is fine, but for Anglo-Catholics who believe in the transformation of the Host and Wine in some form of transubstantiation, it is not, despite the design of the Prayer Book to hold different "wings" together. In trying to do away with Papal edict with the deliberate removal of references to the Real Presence and the insertion of the Black Rubric, the Reformers threw out the baby with the bath water. Of course, the fact that the Anglican Catholic Church seeks to replace that which the Reformers omitted is seen by some as Revisionism despite the fact that the Reformers were probably just as Revisionist of the Catholic Faith in the first place. If Anglo-Catholics are revisionist then they are merely revising reforming revisions. (There's a blog title I missed! Rabbits!)

 The Anglican Catholic Church Constitution allows for local latitude in the use of the Prayer Book: the 1928 US Prayer Book is in (very) good keeping with the original BCP of 1549 from which the others sprang. Thus, with the 1549 as the basis and all understanding of the liturgy being read through the doctrine of the Primitive Church (i.e. through the doctrine of the Oecumenical Councils) the Continuing Anglican movement has a potential for global community which can work if people are willing to accept those principles.

I have made no secret of the fact that, in my private prayer, I use the Monastic Breviary  It is deliberately designed so that it translates the old Latin Breviary with the Psalms and collects from the BCP and uses Antiphons in conformity with the epistles and gospels from the BCP. Thus, I am saying the same words with the same intentions as everyone else using the Prayer Book, albeit in a different order. Anyone Prayer Book user who picks up my Breviary will see this conformity immediately and know that, as a Benedictine Oblate, I can follow the Benedictine Offices and yet remain faithful to the spirit of the Prayer Book which, itself, is born of the Catholic Faith in England and desirous to remove the excesses of Roman politics on liturgy and doctrine. The same is true with the missals which the Anglican Catholic Church authorises to be used in conformity with the BCP

This is the genius of both the Prayer Book and the Canonical intention of the Anglican Catholic Church. I am allowed a diversity of practice and yet remain faithful to the spirit of the Catholic Church in England before the Reformation and Post Reformation and the spirit which unifies other Anglican Christians.

I would also like to give some comfort to those who worry about my lack of use of the Prayer Book. If, as and when I am required to say public Offices in a parish church, then I have no qualms about using the BCP for Mattins and Evensong. As a chorister who has sung in many a cathedral, I have a deep appreciation for the Prayer Book Offices. I also recognise that not everyone is Benedictine and thus I must minister to them in the "secular" Offices which are as laid down in the BCP. Were I to be part of a Benedictine community, then I would use the Breviary in that community.

Whether we like it or not, the Prayer Book is part of Continuing Anglican history - indeed part of the history of the Church of England. Whether it is a defining aspect of Anglicanism is debatable: I maintain that there is Anglicanism before the BCP and that the BCP is a product - a good product - of that Anglicanism and thus an expression not a definition of Anglicanism. It proceeds from Anglicanism.

I would also like to give comfort to those Catholics who worry about my love of the BCP. As I have said above, the Anglican Catholic Church reads the BCP through the Catholic Faith. There are many deficiencies in the intention of the Reformers to omit perfectly Catholic and Faithful practices and doctrine. The Sarum Office is the basis of much of the Prayer Book, but is fuller and more in line with the Catholic Faith. The Sarum Office requires the daily recitation of the Quicunque Vult which, in an age of rejecting tradition, can only be a good thing.

As an expression of Anglicanism, both Catholic and Protestant can assent to the spirit of the BCP and use it as they see fit, either by its direct usage or by texts that conform or which have grown up in conjunction with its spirit. If we can all agree that it is a godly book, then we have a unifying principle by which we have some community.

I would say that there is something else, something deeper within Anglicanism that unites Continuing Anglican communities. The Anglican Catholic Church is as Orthodox as Constantinople and as Catholic as Rome. What is perhaps different about us is that we have a higher regard for the laity and need to continue to have that higher regard. This comes from our Anglicanism side. Many of the architects of the ACC were laymen, including the canonist Fr Stahl (God rest him) who was only ordained after his work on our canons. Having been to the Provincial Synod and meeting some of those who were at the Congress made me appreciate that we are not a Church who seeks to make the laity obedient sheep but rather engages with them actively at all levels. We need to let that continue by developing a well-educated laity which doesn't see the need to be ordained in order to get involved in building parishes and preaching the Christian Faith and thus include women fundamentally in the work of the Church rather than just seeing them as nuns, wives and mothers. I have seen personally the activity of many intrepid, strong, intelligent and intimidating women at the Provincial Synod who have been instrumental in building parishes and developing spiritual ministries.

The Continuing Anglican way has this written into itself more than, perhaps, the Lambeth Communion which broke away from us. It is why I wrote my book Whom seek ye? at my bishop's behest in order to encourage the laity not only to be educated but to continue to educate themselves in full commitment to the Anglican Catholic cause. 

As I end this dreadful 2020, I find myself very hopeful about Continuing Anglicanism and the possibility of its growth but then I am always the optimist. We now have mechanisms in place to grow and serve even from our state of smallness. I look forward to what the future brings for us, though the work is going to be very tough. I continue in prayer for this vision,  for God's will to be done and for the unifying presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the community.