A Fox in the Henhouse

Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm. (Proverbs 13:20)

By Robin G. Jordan

The Roman Catholic Church is taking advantage of canonical legislation that was adopted at a time when ecumenical relations between the Church of England and the Church of Rome were at their height in the twentieth century in order to poach members of the Church of England. Canon B 43 permits the minister of a Church of England parish with the consent of the parochial church council to invite the minister of another denomination to preach at a service in the parish. This provision was adopted to foster better relations between the Church of England and other denominations, not to facilitate another denomination’s proselytization of members of the Church of England or their migration to another denomination. Any invitation that the incumbent of St. James the Great, Darlington, may have extended to former Church of England bishop, now Roman Catholic priest Keith Newton under the provisions of Canon B 43 was a misuse or abuse of the provisions of this canon. It certainly was not in keeping with the intent of the canon in question.

If Newton in his capacity as Ordinary of the Our Lady Walsingham Personal Ordinariate wishes to conduct public meetings to determine interest in the Ordinariate, he should be holding them at a venue other than the church or church hall of a Church of England parish. If clergy and lay members of the Church of England wish to meet with him and learn more about the Ordinariate, they should be meeting with him at such a venue. The fact that Newton met with would-be defectors from the Church of England in the buildings of a Church of England parish shows the total lack of respect that Newton, the Roman Catholic Church, and the would-be defectors have for the Church of England. Disobedience to church authority was one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Romeward Movement in the nineteenth century and similar disobedience characterizes its modern-day adherents.

A strong case can be built that this disobedience set a negative example for other groups in the Church of England and her daughter churches, including the gay rights lobby. It showed them that the Anglican Church was ill equipped to deal with any group that defied ecclesiastical law. It was unable to cope with a concerted effort to force a particular agenda upon the Anglican Church. This may be described as the legacy of the Romeward Movement. The movement’s modern-day adherents are exhibiting a proclivity toward lawlessness as did its nineteenth century adherents.

Meetings conducted in a venue other than a Church of England parish church or church hall would mean that Newton would not have a captive audience. He would be talking to only those who were interested enough in the Ordinariate to attend the meetings. Newton would not have the setting of the Holy Communion to exploit in his talks. Church of England clergy may celebrate the Holy Communion only in venues that are approved by the Ordinary of their diocese. Newton himself would not be able to preside at a celebration of the Holy Communion since he is now a Roman Catholic priest and Roman Catholic priests under the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law cannot consecrate and distribute the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to non-Roman Catholics. This would highlight that Anglo-Catholics are not in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church “Catholics.” They are Protestants like non-Anglo-Catholics. Only “Catholics” may receive Communion at a Roman Catholic Mass.

Past generations of English Churchmen had a name for the meetings that Newton and the Church of England clergy sympathetic to his cause are conducting. They would have described them as “conventicles.” The Proposed Canons of 1571 and the Canons of 1604 prohibited them in recognition of their potential to subvert the Church of England. The Pseudo-Canons of 1640 as they are sometimes called contain a provision directed against “Papists” who “are…dangerously active to seduce any Person from the Communion of the Church of England….” It included measures “to reduce all such to the Church of England, who are misled into Popish Superstition.” Due to the influence of the ecumenical movement the present canons are more tolerant. But they were never intended to be used in the way that Newton and his Church of England sympathizers are using them.

Both priests and bishops of the Church of England have an obligation “with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary God’s word.” This includes privately and openly calling upon and encouraging others to do the same. At the consecration of an archbishop or bishop in the 1661 Ordinal the archbishop or bishop is charged to be diligent in doctrine “for by so doing thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” Yet they seem to be struck speechless.

In a liberal society committed to multiculturalism, pluralism, and political correctness, the silence of Church of England bishops and clergy may be not surprising. Some hold to the same beliefs and engage in the same practices as those are deserting the Church of England for the Church of Rome. Others cannot be described as faithful to the Bible and the Reformation in their own beliefs and practices and may fear that if they voice any criticism, they subject themselves to criticism. They also have not yet come to the realization that the old ecumenism of twentieth century is dead. The new ecumenism of the twenty-first century is just another name for stealing another church’s members and trespassing upon its turf for that purpose. In the meantime the Ordinary of the Our Lady of Walsingham Personal Ordinariate like the fox whom the village idiot let into his mother’s chicken coop gobbles up one plump hen after another.