Deborah Gyapong has written this clarification as a comment in her blog. I reproduce it here in a spirit of fairness.

My concern is not so much trying to convince people of a belief in the One True Church—which is far more nuanced as Norm can explain or the Catechism teaches than the black and white pronouncement “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church—but to respond to what come across to me as misrepresentations of my position, that of Anglicanorum coetibus and of the Portsmouth event. All I’m trying to point out is this: The Catholic Church defines Catholic in a certain way. Those who call themselves Catholic who are not visible members in communion with the Catholic Church have another definition of “Catholic.” I hold the Catholic Church’s definition. But that does not mean I think those who hold the other position are masquerading, or fakes for their deeply-held beliefs. However, if one wants to come into communion with the Catholic Church, one must hold to what the Catholic Church teaches, not make up one’s own view of what it means to be Catholic. These teachings on ecclesiology were the last to click into place for me, as I still find the “mystical Body of Christ” view persuasive and personally feel more of a Christian bond with devout evangelical brothers and sisters than I do with cafeteria Catholics who may have the membership in the Church but not the faith.

Yes, I do believe she is trying to be nuanced, to her credit. It is evident that if a person freely chooses to become a Roman Catholic, it is on the terms of the Bishop concerned and the Roman Curia. For those who have made this unconditional commitment by actually being received into the RC Church, they are stuck with the conditions offered to them.

What I object to are suggestions that those TAC bishops who did not go through with it have lost all honour and credibility, and that their clergy and faithful are fair game. That is the bottom line.

In short, I do not believe that the TAC bishops in some way contracted the moral and ecclesial obligations of those who have voluntarily gone through with reception into the Roman Catholic Church. Signing the catechism and a letter asking Rome to come up with some corporate solution was not a “consummated” commitment. I believe the message to Rome was the effect of “We take away all doctrinal reasons for you considering us as heretics, and we are open minded to what you as the Roman Catholic Church come up with as a solution, but we reserve the right to pull out if we find we are being taken for a ride.” Therefore, the moral obligation is contracted by those who have actually gone through with it and have been received. Clerics cease to be clerics. Those in Anglican orders are treated as though they had never received orders. Those in valid [ie: Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Orthodox, vagante, etc.] orders were stricken with canonical irregularities. They accepted the conditions when they went though with it. Not so with those who did not go through with it. The remaining bishops in the TAC have no such moral obligation. They went into the shop, examined the goods for sale and judged that the quality of the goods was not equivalent to the asking price. They had merely expressed an interest in the goods and asked for the price. No contract was ever consummated, and we must all be clear about this.

Perhaps we outside the RC Church need not use the term Catholic, but perhaps the term Sacramental Christian as suggested in other postings on this blog. People are ignorant, and we do need to be clear. Personally, it is no skin off my nose. Protestants and Evangelicals don’t use the term Catholic either, except in a general way as they recite the Creed. What’s in a word? What does “being Catholic” mean? That’s the subject of a very big book!

We have all to do what our conscience bids us to do, and then to assume what we decide. That would seem to make sense.

* * *

Update: Deborah Gyapong weighs in with The conversation continues at Fr. Chadwick’s blog. She is being subtle and making a great effort to navigate through the morass of all the things that have been hacked to death over the past couple of years.

Interestingly, I think, looking back in a spirit of calm reflection, I believe the Catholic Church treated the TAC as if they assumed the TAC bishops were signing with their fingers crossed behind their backs, or at the very  least they exhibited extreme caution towards the TAC and Archbishop Hepworth and drafted Anglicanorum coetibus more with the Church of England groups in mind than with concern about the ecclesial bonds of the TAC.  Thus, Anglicanorum coetibus and its parish-by-parish model of corporate reception was in itself destabilizing for TAC churches.  The Catholic Church did not treat the Portsmouth letter or the signing of the Catechism as a done deal either, but wanted to ensure that every single individual lay person made a choice to become Catholic.

One bishop (not an American) did say to me on the bus between the hotel and St Agatha’s that he was going along with it, because Rome would take fifty years to respond and another twenty years to translate the letter into Latin if it wasn’t all lost in some bureaucrat’s drawer somewhere along the line. There was no will to oppose what Archbishop Hepworth was doing. In other words, for that bishop, it was a meaningless and expensive charade! But, I don’t think all the bishops had the attitude of the particular prelate I spoke with. Perhaps a few really did in their inmost selves make a commitment to accepting whatever came from Rome. There are many questions which I don’t think will ever be answered. God can always bring good even out of human weakness and evil.

Deborah and I agree on the issue of solidarity, and how lightly that communion we had with each other was abandoned, supposedly for a higher level of communion. I also have to agree that much of the TAC is going to be “ragtag” in matters like valid Orders and doctrine. I am personally a (generic) Old Catholic in terms of ecclesiology, and my theology has been shaped by my scholastic and neo-patristic training, but I am personally a one-off. Deborah does bring out some issues that need attention over the coming years. Proper training of priests and the doctrinal formation of the faithful are not the least of them.

To what extent are we still equivocating between the 39 Articles and the more neo-patristic and Anglo-Catholic teachings in the Affirmation of Saint Louis? To what extent is the TAC allowing doctrines to be negotiated and bartered like in the Canterbury Communion. That is also a subject for survey. There are issues of moral teaching, but Deborah holds particularly “conservative” views on contraception, homosexuality and sex outside marriage. These are delicate issues, and become obsessive ideological points.

I remember when I joined the ACCC, Branch Ecclesiology was still taught 12 years ago…

Why did she not swim the Tiber then or go back to the Orthodox or the Evangelicals? Why did we have Archbishop Hepworth on one side with a few bishops devoutly following the agenda, and most being so morally weak they would accept anything?

How Catholic—however this is defined by the TAC now—does its College of Bishops aspire to be from now on?  What does it mean by Catholic?  Episcopal structure? Apostolic Succession?  Sacramental Theology?   Who decides, bishops?

How is it going to go? In the ACA, Canada, England, South Africa? Perhaps it matters less than we think. If some want to be Protestant, why not? Anglicanism since the Reformation has always been “comprehensive” and has placed harmony, peace and “getting on together” over doctrinal unity. That might seem to be a terrible indictment, but tolerance and dialogue have always been a hallmark of Anglicanism as has human freedom itself. Perhaps humanity in general would be better off under a totalitarian regime. Perhaps Hitler was right, but just got “carried away” by killing people!!! I would prefer not to be around if / when that happens. We English are natural sceptics, and perhaps God has his own way of dealing with us! Who knows?

I also hope that in the years to come, those of us in the Ordinariates and those in the TAC will be the best of friends because there will be far more that we share in common than what we disagree upon.

Perhaps ecumenism can be revived and take on a new meaning.