Fr. Ed Bakker responds to my Hepworth post

Here’s an excerpt:

First of all the reason Archbishop Hepworth was judged in his absence was his unwillingness to go to India and stand trial. He was quoted to say in the Australian papers that the TAC’s tribunal was in la la land. You are talking about someone to represent him. Considering the background , I am not sure whether anyone would be keen to take this on. His former mate Chancellor Peter Slipper was offcourse in no position to help hisI  friend. He is in deep trouble himself. Deborah you will need to bear in mind that Archbishop Hepworth tried to sack Bishop Robarts, who questioned financial irregularities ( that is probably to say it mildly) – this is how Abp John dealt with anyone , who dared to speak up. Fortunately Bishop Robarts was able to secure his position and it is to his credit that he took the issue on. There is also the fact that Archbishop Hepworth failed to leave an alternative for those in the ACCA/TAC who were not going to go Rome.

There’s more over at Fr. Smuts’ site.  

I think Fr. Bakker misses my point about the message the tribunal sends to the rest of the world.  To me, the new TAC looks vindictive and out for their pound of flesh from a man who is already, for all intents and purposes, paid a huge price.  He has already lost pretty much everything.  Do they expect to find bars of gold hidden in some Swiss bank account?

Or do they merely disagree that so much of the Anglican Catholic Church of Australia assets were diverted to support the primacy of the Traditional Anglican Communion and all the travel and other expenses related to unity with the Catholic Church?  What about the $300,000 the rest of the TAC owes the ACCA?

Of course those remaining in the new TAC have turned their back on unity, so to them spending money on the pursuit of unity looks like fraud perhaps.  Also, in the new TAC, who determines doctrine?   Is it still the bishops?  Or has it gone to a democratic, congregationalist model?  What gives a bishop the right to sack a priest?    If a priest starts making up doctrine on his own, or acting in a disloyal, disobedient fashion, should they not have their licenses removed?

All the news about the new TAC is about their prosecution of Hepworth.   They come across to me like the Obama administration blaming George Bush for everything that is going wrong with the economy but proposing no vision of their own for the future except more of the same failed policies.  Talk in comments sections about kangaroo courts should cut them to the quick.  “Hepworth bad; we’re good”  is not going to cut it as an overall messaging strategy.  I liked it much better when we were hearing from Bishop Michael Gill the need to focus on evangelizing.  That was a sweet message.  So preferable!  Can they not evangelize and rise above kicking Hepworth into the dust or even perhaps precipitating his death by his own hand?   Do you know that 46 of the 104 victims of Fr. Ron Pickering have committed suicide?  Is this what they want?  Pickering was one of the priests who abused Hepworth.

My point about the public relations exercise is this:  the new TAC risks coming across to the casual observer as a vindictive lot, whining about sour grapes vis a vis unity with Rome and angrily claiming they were duped and seeking to recoup all the money that was spent on the unity project.

What is sad is that there no longer seems to be a stepping stone out there in the Continuing Anglican world for those who are yearning for unity but are not quite ready in good conscience to cross the Tiber either alone or with a group.   The unity talks with Rome gave the TAC credibility as a serious organization.   Now what distinguishes it from any other group of splintered off groups led by vagante bishops?  Or from congregationalists?

May the new TAC cut their losses, rebuild and move on.  May they find a vision for Anglo-Catholicism that keeps Anglican patrimony alive in countries where there is no ordinariate on offer.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Fr. Ed Bakker responds to my Hepworth post

  1. Pingback: Fr. Ed Bakker responds to my Hepworth post | Catholic Canada

  2. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    I’m a bit confused about Archbishop Hepworth. Is he now entering the Australian Ordinariate as a layman or not? Is he still with the Australian TAC (A.C.C.A.)? He said in the past that, if Rome required it, he would give up the clerical life, retire, and go fishing. I presume, then, that he is already a lay member of the Ordinariate of the Southern Cross. However, I have never seen any news to this effect.

    Abp. Hepworth, during the time of his negotiations, did say that Rome would all the new Ordinariate to use the Australian TAC’s current Massbook. So far, I have not heard that this being done. Will this be permitted for an interim period? So far, we are hearing that the Australian Ordinariate is using the Novus Ordo Missæ, a Rite which is not intergral to the Anglican patrimony and is seriously defective as Catholic worship. Why would anyone be attracted to the N.O.M. with only two Anglican prayers added to it? Even assuming that there was nothing wrong with the New Mass, why would anyone be drawn to the Ordinariate for it? You can get it anywhere.


    • Peter, For your information at the time being he is not entering the RC as a layman, neither is he involved in the Ordinariate of the Southern Cross in Australia. He has been removed from his position as the ordinary for the ACCA/TAC, so he is a Bishop on his own.
      Father Ed Bakker OPR

      • Foolishness says:

        My information is that you are wrong, Father Ed Bakker. Archbishop Hepworth is entering the Catholic Church as a layman. I expect this to happen some time in the next several months.

  3. Paul Nicholls ofs says:

    It is a tragedy that all this has happened and it is an open wound in the Body of Christ, the Church. My prayers are with all concerned. I just hope that all of us, whether in the Ordinariate or the Traditional Anglican Communion, can one day get along with each other and treat each other with respect and dignity. It would be nice, if we could get to the point where we could do things such as have a joint evensong under one church roof, but that may never come. I think we need to put all our differences aside and move on. Let’s put all bitterness aside, people.

    As far as Mr. Perkin’s comments are concerned, what totally puzzles me is why Ordinariate groups, whether they be in England or Australia, would continue using the Ordinary Form of the Mass. How does this preserve the patrimony?

    Thanks be to God, I am in Canada, where Rite 1 prevails and a genuine effort is being made to preserve many aspects of the Anglican patrimony within the Catholic Church. I do not wish to imply that a genuine effort is not being made to preserve the patrimony, elsewhere, but the “proof is in the pudding”, isn’t it?

    I would like to hear some comments on this matter from the other side of the puddle, on this matter. I welcome any criticism of any point I have made on this matter, as stated above, if it results in clarification.

    • SJO says:

      Thanks for your comments here Paul. I totally agree with you and join with you in your prayers for the Body of Christ, the Church. Your comments reveal someone who has paid real attention to our English History and maybe knows something about what exactly is being preserved and honored about our “Anglican Patrimony” by the Holy Father in the context of the Anglicanorum Coetiubus.

      In all the “clammer of comments” flying all around us, it was truly refreshing to see someone speaking about what I too consider to be the “crux of the matter.”
      After all, if one is “Ordinariate-bound”…what is the point if there is no accommodation within the structure of the Ordinariate to preserve what is central to our Patrimony, namely, the BCP (and all the bloodshed in our English history to produce and maintain such a book…yes, this IS our Patrimony!!)

      You are absolutely correct as you have said the “proof is in the pudding”…and we all await the “taste” of that pudding and wonder what the exact “flavor” of it will be!

      My own Anglican formation has been, by the mercy of God, given to me through the Anglican Service Book (ASB), which primarily preserves “traditional language” (yes, really good English!) in worship, “the majesty of which speaks to the soul in a way in which modern English cannot.” (ASB pg 6). The book came on the scene here in the United States in 1991 towards the end of the liturgical renewal movement “which began early in the twentieth century and which produced the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council. While the prayer books of the Anglican Communion from 1549 had already addressed many of the concerns of this movement (such as the use of the vernacular and a daily office for the use of all), the movement did have a profound effect on prayer book revision in this church. The purpose of the book was to facilitate corporate worship in the traditional idiom as provided for in the prayer.” (ASB pg. 6,7) Another really wonderful thing about the ASB is that it includes The Psalter of the 1928 BCP, which, as you might know is a version of the “Psalter in the Great Bible of 1539, itself an adaptation of Miles Coverdale’s translation of 1535 and essentially the same translation used in Anglican Churches around the world.” (ASB p 444) Now there is some Anglican Patrimony!!

      Maybe someday I’ll just move to Canada.

  4. victor2378 says:

    Mr Nicholls, I agree with you in the principle, but one has to bear in mind that most of the English Ordinariate parishes have as little experience with the BCP as their “diocesan Catholic” brethren. Judging from what is being published on blogs like Fr Ed Tomlinson’s, the BCW is slowly being introduced, but in homoeopathic dosage, so-to-speak. If the full-scale introduction of the Ordinariate liturgy leads to the ordinariate parishioners attending the normal sunday mass in their diocesan parishes, I daresay the intended goal has not been achieved. Wouldn’t you agree?

  5. Rev22:17 says:


    I agree completely with your general thrust.

    You wrote: My point about the public relations exercise is this: the new TAC risks coming across to the casual observer as a vindictive lot, whining about sour grapes vis a vis unity with Rome and angrily claiming they were duped and seeking to recoup all the money that was spent on the unity project.

    This has gone past the point of risk. Casual observers, like yours truly, now have a perception that the group now claiming to be the Traditional Anglican Communion is both illegitimate and vindictive, and that the bishops in control are underhanded connivers who would do anything to gain power.


    • William Tighe says:

      I agree.

      • Foolishness says:

        Perception is not always reality, so I trust none of us are going so far as to make that judgment about the new TAC only to convey our concern about the optics. I am sad about this because there are many, many good people in the new TAC and I wish we could all move on and as Paul Nicholls writes, be able to have a good future relationship. Bishop Craig Botterill I remember as a kind, bright and competent shepherd and I’m confused by his present actions, very confused. I’m also confused by Bishop Gill, who writes beautifully about evangelizing. May they get on to it! Crushing Hepworth, who is already left with nothing, is not the way to go.

      • Rev22:17 says:


        You wrote: Perception is not always reality, so I trust none of us are going so far as to make that judgment about the new TAC only to convey our concern about the optics.

        Unfortunately, those involved seem to be hell-bent on removing all doubt, as Bishops Marsh and Strawn of the remnant Anglican Church in America (ACA) did long ago. Tragically, Archbishop Prakesh seems to be following in their way.

        You wrote: Bishop Craig Botterill I remember as a kind, bright and competent shepherd and I’m confused by his present actions, very confused.

        As am I. The separation of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACA) into the continuing Diocese of Canada and the Pro-Diocese of Our Lady of Walsingham was exemplary, and Bishop Craig Botterill handled it in a very classy manner. I know that there was friction within some of the congregations, but the leadership clearly handled the whole situation as a very amicable parting of friends.


    • Mourad says:

      What has actually happened in Canada seems to be that the alphabet soup of different “continuing Anglicans” is now looking to realign. One of them posted someing on Fr Stephen Smuts’ blog to that effect. As I understand it the two factions are the rump of the “Anglican Catholic Church of Canada” under Bishop Botterill which continues to be a part of the “Traditional Anglican Communion” and, another the body which I think calls itself “The Traditional Anglican Church of Canada” with, presently 8 or so clergy who at present look to a California based bishop for Episcopal oversight. There may be others. But nether seems to have much by way of long term viability.

      The poster mentioned Screwtape. That at once put me in mind of a postwar postcript which C.S. Lewis wrote for the NY Saturday Evening Post and which is on line in that estimable magazine’s archive: Screwtape Proposes a Toast which is set in the satanic equivalent of what one may think of as an Oxbridge theological college. Towards the end one has Screwtape’s description of the wine provided for the toast he is to propose to the College Principal, Dr Slubgob:-

      “Can it be? Mr. Principal, I unsay all my hard words about the dinner. I see and smell that even under wartime conditions the college cellar still has a few dozen of sound old vintage Pharisee. Well, well, well! This is like old times. Hold it beneath your nostrils for a moment, Gentledevils, Hold it up to the light. Look at those fiery streaks that writhe and tangle in its dark heart as if they were contending. And so they are, You know how this wine is blended? Different types of Pharisee have been harvested, trodden and fermented together to produce its subtle flavor. Types that were most antagonistic to one another on earth . Some were all rules and relics and
      rosaries; others were all drab clothes, long faces, and petty traditional abstinences from wine, or cards, or the theater. Both had in common their self-righteousness and the almost infinite distance between their actual outlook and anything the Enemy really is or commands. The wickedness of other religions was the really live doctrine in the religion of each’, slander was its gospel and denigration its litany, How they hated one another up there where the sun shone! How much more they hate one another now that they are forever conjoined but not reconciled”

      Isn’t that just what all these continuing bodies will be: “conjoined but not reconciled”?

  6. Clive Packer says:

    @Paul Nicholls: As a former member of Forward in Faith who came to Canada in 1996, let me again explain that in the majority of Anglo-Catholic parishes in the Church of England the NO Roman Rite was used – albeit illicitly. When FinF held national meetings, rallies, etc., the NO was used. The last time I saw a BCP eucharist conducted in the Church of England for a main Sunday service would be when I was about ten years old. The BCP isn’t all that familiar to the current generation of Anglo-Catholics in the CofE – the older ones perhaps, but not to anyone 40 and under. It’s typically offered as an 8am, or a Saturday vigil service for those who would like, but it’s not used on Sundays for Parish Masses. I was married in a Roman rite nuptial Mass, with all the trimmings – which confounded both my low church family and my Roman Catholic friends 🙂

    That said, there is a world of difference between a typical RC folksy NO Sunday Mass and the way it’s done at St. Mary, Wellingborough. Incense, vestments, reverence, hymnody, bells, the post service bunfight… these would be the signs of Anglo-Catholicism in England. So no, you can’t just go up the road and get the same NO Mass at a regular Catholic church, and yes, the English Ordinariate is bringing with them and preserving what they have known for the past 30 or 40 years – what has held them together and what is familiar. It would be wrong to foist something alien onto these congregations as they find their feet after crossing the Tiber.

    As a Brit, I do sometimes find the very traditional Anglican in North America to be a somewhat strange animal, pining for an England they never knew and that hasn’t existed for a hundred years. “Nostalgia for a time they can’t remember” to borrow from a song.

    I get how beautiful the BCP and KJV language is. I enjoy it… indeed I say a BCP form of Compline every night, despite being an RC these 12 years. But it just isn’t the reality on the ground in England.

  7. Mourad says:

    Firstly, Clive Packer is absolutely right. Indeed some of the CofE Churches used to be qute proud when a foreign Catholic tourist attended their Church on Sunday for Mass and left without realising that the Church was not a Catholic Church.

    One of the benefits to the whole church of Anglicanorum Coetibus is that there are an increasing number of Churches where there is an Ordinariate Priest who ministers both to an Ordinariate Group and to a diocesan congregation. In numbers of those Churches the public recital of the Daily Office has been introduced -and that is something which is catching on – especially Evensong. Incidentally it was part of the scheme of the Vatican II reforms that the Dialy Office should form part of the regular worship in parish churches – but somehow it never happened. Now that the Customary of Our Lady has been published, there is more liturgical material available to the Ordinariate clergy – but what is really needed is the Ordinariate rite for Holy Mass.

    What I hope we will eventually have is that in a given deanery a choice of forms of Mss will be offered.

    • Don Henri says:

      Well, an intermediate rite for Mass was promised as part of the Customary in the early reports from Mgr. Burnham (on the Canterbury Press website), but apparently it has not been sanctioned, and the customary has been published without it, probably explaining the delay in it’s publication.

      + PAX et BONUM

  8. Patrick-TAC says:

    I am sorry to tell you Deborah that you are not happy with your decision of leaving TAC, for your information TAC is not new it is the same TAC you were once a member of. You need to know that TAC does not need your approval as to how to handle its challenges. Take your Hepworth who misled our Shepperds with you as a layman. Your Hepworth has been expelled by TAC. You need a lesson to know that Hepworth need to pay back all TAC funds and we do not need to please people like you who are inside the TAC in their minds because of regretting their decisions of joining Roman Catholic Church. You are naive to say TAC is about crucifying Hepworth , You are also naive and need some theological and history lessons if you think TAC’s credibility depends on communion with Roman Catholic, please do not bluff around thinking that TAC is not a valid Church with Apostolic Successsion because you will be a laughing stock. Please leave TAC news and stay miserable in your new church. Please again read Father Bakker’s comments about TAc, about how your mentor Hepworth illtreated people, please wake up and learn more about how the church should operate. THERE IS NO NEW TAC-THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR VOCABULARY BECAUSE OUR CHURCH WAS NOT AND IS NOT DEFINED THROUGH HEPWORTH AS YOU ARE NAIVELY THINKING.

    • Foolishness says:

      This comment is pretty bizarre and contradictory.

      • Patrick-TAC says:

        Please quote what is bizarre and contradictory so that I can explain further for your information because the comment state straight forward about the position Deborah should confine herself with and it is about stopping her from misleading herself or people at large about how the TAC should operate. In fact it is about showing how people who are not happy in their respective choices are going around in poking their noses where thy are not desired, please quote about a single contradiction if you see one so that I can make you feel at ease to know the circumstances around the coomment.

    • Rev22:17 says:


      You wrote: I am sorry to tell you Deborah that you are not happy with your decision of leaving TAC, for your information TAC is not new it is the same TAC you were once a member of. (sic)

      Unfortunately, that statement is demonstrably false. The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) to which Deborah belonged was set on, and actively pursuing, full reconciliation with the Catholic Church. The present TAC clearly is rejecting any sort of reconcilliation.

      You wrote: Your Hepworth has been expelled by TAC.

      Rather, the present leaders of the TAC staged a mutiny and thus created a schism within that body, forming a new entity that coopted the name. The supposed “expulsion” is utter nonsense because an organization cannot expel somebody who is not a member of it.


      • Patrick-TAC says:

        Rev 22:17,
        The statement is correctly true, because you will not get a comment about Deborah’s progress in their recruit in Roman Catholic or how is their worshipping growing spiritually.It is all about TAC, about what the Bishops of TAC should conduct themselves. The TAC was talking about communion and not absorption, everyone in the TAC knows what the Bishops were looking for, so to say the TAC does not want full reconciliation you are false. Even now our Bishops only rejected the offer and still maintain that they want communion wherein both parties should seat together and discuss matters and not to be dictated or bullied by Rome as to how to go about reconciliatio and for that matter after TAc rejected the offer, the SSPX did the same three months later because no one want to be bullied. There is no schism my friend and there is no new entity, the Bishops of the TAC are governed by Concordat (Constitution) for your information and resolved in terms of their Concordat. The nonsense is what you are saying because Hepworth expulsion is genuine because he only resigned as a Primate and not as a Bishop ordinary of Australian Diocese, Hepworth had neither resigned as a member of TAc, so please understand things before arguing baseless.

      • Rev22:17 says:


        You wrote: The statement is correctly true…

        No. You are missing one very important point. Archbishop John Hepworth was still the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) when Archbishop Prakesh summoned the meeting that purported to depose him. Since he was not the primate and lacked the primate’s authority to summon that meeting, Archbishop Prakesh lacked the canonical authority to do so. Thus, the meeting was illegitimate and its purported acts are rightfully understood to be without effect (or, if you prefer, null and void). This means that what emerged from that meeting is no longer the legitimate TAC.

        You wrote: The TAC was talking about communion and not absorption, everyone in the TAC knows what the Bishops were looking for, so to say the TAC does not want full reconciliation you are false. Even now our Bishops only rejected the offer and still maintain that they want communion wherein both parties should seat together and discuss matters and not to be dictated or bullied by Rome as to how to go about reconciliatio and for that matter after TAc rejected the offer, the SSPX did the same three months later because no one want to be bullied.

        You cannot equate the situation of Anglican Christians with the situation of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

        >> For reasons discussed in the decree Apotolicae curae promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, the Catholic Church holds Anglican orders to be “utterly null and void,” with the consequence that only the sacraments of baptism and marriage within the Anglican Communion and the numerous “continuing Anglican” bodies can be valid. In particular, this means that the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders, which impart character when validly administered, are not valid. The Catholic Church will not agree to any process of reconciliation that fails to cure the defects in these sacraments. Fundamentally, this means that the members of every group of Anglicans coming into the Catholic Church must be confirmed at the time of reception, and that Anglican clergy must be ordained in the Catholic Church before they can exercise their orders after reception into full communion.

        >> The SSPX, by contrast, has undisputed apostolic succession. Thus, its sacramental orders are valid and its members and adherents are already validly confirmed. It is this distinction that enables members of the SSPX who come into the full communion of the Catholic Church may exercise their sacramental orders immediately upon their reception into full communion.

        The obstacle to reconcilliation of the SSPX is its rejection of Catholic doctrine of the church, stated infallibly by the Second Vatican Council in the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium and reiterated, almost verbatim, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here, Section 5 of Article I the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus imposes the same standard of doctrinal conformity on the ordinariates: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate.”

        The Catholic Church has, however, shown considerable flexibility as to the process of reception of former Anglican parishes so they can bring their buildings and other property into the Catholic Church with them, as Deborah’s community did. In addition, the former Anglican pastors have received appointments as canonical “administrators” of the respective communities, so they retain full canonical authority of governance thereof. Clearly there has been more delay than we would have liked in the Catholic ordinations of many of the former Anglican clergy, especially here in the United States, but the ordinations nevertheless are on track.

        But in this context, it’s quite instructive to look at what is happening in Canada, where former Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC) bishops Peter Wilkinson and Carl Reid are preparing for ordination as Catholic presbyters on 08 December and most of the rest of the former ACCC clergy will receive ordination as Catholic presbyters around Easter of next year. I anticipate that there will be an official announcement of the canonical erection of the Canadian deanery and the appointment of one or the other of these gentlemen as its first dean at the respective ordination. When it is fully established, the Canadian deanery will look very much like the former ACCC Pro-Diocese of Our Lady of Walsingham, with the addition of St. John the Evangelist Parish in Calgary, formerly of the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), thereto.

        And here, I find the above comment by “Mourad” about an “alphabet soup of “continuing Anglicans” looking to realign. If they, or their parishes, lack the “critical mass” to be sustainable, it is likely that they will turn to the Canadian deanery of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter as a more sustainable solution. The influx of new members and communities from these bodies over time, coupled with those coming from the ACC, will allow the Canadian deanery of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter to become a separate ordinariate in due course.

        You wrote: There is no schism my friend and there is no new entity, the Bishops of the TAC are governed by Concordat (Constitution) for your information and resolved in terms of their Concordat.

        You mean the very concordat that they violated by convening a meeting without the primate’s approval?

        When you violate a concordat, you cease to be under it.


  9. Foolishness says:

    I would be happy to tell you what is bizarre and contradictory Patrick-TAC, but my comments will have to wait until I get some other work done. Don’t know where you get the idea I am unhappy about becoming Catholic! The key difference between the old TAC that I belonged to is that its bishops had all signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on the altar of St. Agatha’s in Portsmouth as well as the petition of 2007 to come into union with the Holy See. The letter did not spell out terms and the signing of the CCC indicated they accepted the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which also teaches the importance of full, visible, communion with the Bishop of Rome. The new TAC has repudiated the offer of Anglicanorum coetibus. The bishops who lived in countries where ordinariates are on offer who both understood the CCC and meant it as evidenced by their signatures are now members of the Catholic Church. My former TAC was bound for unity. The new TAC is trying to unify the shards of Continuing Anglicanism, as if this was what the Affirmation of St. Louis was all about. As someone astute pointed out to me, there were no shards of Continuing Anglicanism to seek unity with back when the Affirmation was drafted—and unity could only have meant with either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox.

    Thus, in my opinion, the new TAC has a diminished mission and calling.

    As for not crucifying Hepworth. Where is he going to find the money to pay back to the TAC for what he spent on unity efforts? From his old-age pension? Are you supporting throwing him out onto the street destitute in order to prove your point? I hope the TAC rediscovers the meaning of unity and Christian brotherhood—and no, true brotherhood it is not unifying around a scapegoat but around the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. The new TAC has some men who could preach beautifully about that. I hope they get on with that and move on from what seems to be seeking their pound of flesh.

    • Patrick-TAC says:


      I dont know what your name implies about you, however I recalled relating unhappyness with Roman Catholic decision to join only to Deborah and I indicated how instead of thinking about Ordinariate but her efforts are to judge TAC Bishop’s decisions. Let me help you here the letter was seeking communion and please read the difference between communion and absorption, you talk of repudiation of offer and yet you think signing of CCC of Rome binds people. I do not know why dont you ask your auhorities as to why do they give an offer to people whom they own if its what you think of your CCC has. They must teach you why they gave an offer if CCC binds TAC Bishops who requeste communion please do not be naive, why are your athorities not seeking redress to take our finances and buildings if they own our Bishops. Please think again and understand the contents of the letter from TAC to Roman Catholics.There is no new TAC you are instead diminished in your understanding of faith and think that your opinion is the one that is better to anyone if you think Roman Catholic is the only true Catholic Church.I hope you will take back your hepworth and make him your Priest again as he belong with you.The same TAC which declined your Roman Catholic Church’s offer is going forward in faith and does not bother about what Roman catholics are doing but is instead focusing more like never before on its mission of preaching the Gospel of Christ. You act like the rest of figitives who are not haappy in their choices, who thought TAC was finished like your athourities, HA HA HA think again the TAC is young vibrant and is stronger like before.It is still the same TAC thats why it responded to decline the offer, as it is the same TAC which requested only COMMUNION and not absorption.

  10. Pingback: To Patrick-TAC —-some answers to your assertions | Foolishness to the world

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s