Saturday, 30 June 2012


Imaginary conference with Mr John Hunwicke, a minister of the ''Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham,'' formerly Father John Hunwicke, priest of God in the Church of England. (As of now, in deference to my conviction that Roman orders are absolutely null and utterly void, I shall cease to refer to any Roman cleric by the sacerdotal title ''father'').

Mr Hunwicke, for forty years you believed yourself to be a validly ordained priest, is that correct? My question is, at what point did you cease to believe this, and why? Surely if Grace (which is not a comodity dispensed by clerics, even very important ones) exists outside the confines of the Roman church, which claims to be the True Church of Christ, was there any need of your ''re-ordination?'' Do your newfound Roman Catholic friends think anything at all of your lifelong ministry in the Church of England? And what would you say to them that claim that the quality of your old 'blog waned the closer you came to your conversion to the Roman church?

Answer me all that, and I'll shew you a green dog. Incidentally, a Roman priest admonished me yestereve that we ought all to rejoice in John Hunwicke's ordination to the Roman presbyterate. ''We'' ought? said I. The once great man has been deluded and manipulated by a gigantic fraud, seduced by the scarlet whore, whose mission seems to be to trample Tradition under foot. Wherefore, then, should we all rejoice at what is demonstrably sacrilege of the worst kind? Upon seeing such photos as these I felt just as I felt years ago when I read that Gay Rights activists had thrown used condoms onto the altar of a church in New York - disgusted.

Oh well, at least the Ordinariate has to give all that money back to the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. As a friend said, ''That should finish the Ordinariate off nicely.'' May it please God!

I saw this photo here.


  1. Using those vestments in a gothic revival church, what a folly.

    I hope they don't mess it up completely by using a more Roman style for the new baptistery and chapel.

  2. 1. Whence cometh the chutzpah with which you declare RC orders absolutely null and utterly void? Are you seriously putting yourself in the same unsupportable place as a certain Bishop of Rome that you condemn for applying these same words to Anglicans? All hail Pope Patricius!

    2. As an Anglican I, of course, accept Fr. Hunwicke's orders without question. However, Rome, as you well know, does not. If, as certainly seems the case, he is, in good conscience, convinced of the claims of the Roman see, he has no choice but to enter it, and to yield to the instructions coming from the Roman See. Insisting on any other course of action would be dishonorable.

    3. Holy Orders does not give an individual possession of anything. Yes, there is a mark upon the soul, but any and all exercise of these orders belongs to the Church. If one defines "Church" so narrowly as to limit it to the RCC (which I don't, but apparently he does), it would be fault on his part to defy the disposition the RCC proposes to make of his case.

    4. Somewhat confusingly, in the light of the claims of nullity, Rome has not asked any of the formerly Anglican clergy to deny their past ministry, but, to the contrary, has encouraged them, upon reordination, to continue to observe the date of their Anglican ordination as their priestly anniversary. This, in spite of their mind-blowing denial of conditional ordination.

    Fr. Hunwicke is not to be blamed for this situation. He's doing the best he can with what is on offer for a man of his convictions. Rome is doing the best it can while stuck in the corner into which it has painted itself. That best is not good enough in my view, but it is mostly consistent with stands it has taken. It would be a genuine miracle, but I do pray that Rome will eventually find a way to backtrack.

  3. "It would be a genuine miracle, but I do pray that Rome will eventually find a way to backtrack."

    I wish the same for our friend Patricius.

  4. Ed puts his finger on a crucial point. None of the priests "re-ordained" considered they were not priests already. Presumably they accepted the "re-ordination" with the same humility as that with which St Chad accepted re-consecration to satisfy the Romans. As Ed says, there is no rubbing of priests' noses in Aposticae Curae. It is a civilized fudge: people are left to think their own thoughts. Perhaps this is the sort of compromise without which ecumenism cannot progress. It is a kind of repeat of the Anglican-Methodist scheme.

  5. You are a silly intemperate child in a perennial state of tantrum. From one who holds many if not most of your liturgical convictions, I hope and pray one day you grow up.

    1. JGKester,

      A palpable hit, indeed!
      I wonder if you have children in your care/of your own? They speak honestly, without guile, just as you have, what is going through their heads and hearts. It is often disconcerting, sometimes painful, and frequently distressing. But is anyone won over by sharp words - especially those which demean he hearer? Personally, I sympathise very strongly with P's personal anguish concerning his own and the RCC's tangled and unworthy situation, from which neither sees an easy resolution. Hitting out at others must relieve one's personal pain somewhat, and I hope that you feel better for having pronounced your assessment. We, like all children, may hope to learn by our mistakes. Fortunately, God is able to forgive us. Are we able to forgive others, and overlook the speck in their eye?

    2. B-Flat, however wise your words, I cannot help but think they might be more profitably directed to Patricius himself.