Documentation
This page contains the texts of a number of selected documents. At present these relate to the crisis which developed within the HCC-WR from February 2005 onward. The second of these is a long descriptive statement of the sequence of events down to April 7th 2005. To this is added an account of events in India following upon this period. Some of the documents are necessarily repetitive.
Documents:
Notice of Deposition and ExcommunicationCrisis in the HCC-WR : A Chronological Report
On the suspension of Bishop Wright and the charges made against himMemorandum on the illegal deposition of Bishop Banzana
Letter - Hamlett's teaching on Confession
Third Report to the College of Bishops
From the Minutes of the HCC-WR Synod in Columbia - June 2005
A disagreeable incident - from the August Editorial
Because of the action taken by Archbishop Hamlett against the members of the Synod of Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite it has been found necessary to issue the following notice. The rest of the documentation will provide the context for this action:
THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH - WESTERN RITE
in
The Family of Catholic Churches
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND EXCOMMUNICATION
We, the Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite in the Family of Catholic Churches notify and certify all whom it may concern that we, meeting in Synod on the Twenty-eighth Day of the month of June, in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Five, under the provisions of the Constitutional Canons of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite, have agreed and determined unanimously that the Notice of Deposition dated the Fourth Day of April of the year Two Thousand and Five in respect of Bishop Samuel Mzukisi Banzana, issued under the signatures of Archbishop Leslie Hamlett, Bishop John B. Appleton and Bishop José Santiago who therein describe themselves as the College of Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite, is a knowing and deliberate contravention of the Constitutional Canons, notably Canon Titles I:8 and I:10 of the said Church. Moreover it is determined by the Synod that the Notice gives no proof that it issued from a legitimately constituted Synod of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite and is the product of a false Synod, a conciliabulum, attracting upon its participants and signatories the penalities imposed by the first three Canons of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. In accordance with these Canons the aforesaid Archbishop and Bishops are ‘deposed from the priesthood and degraded from their rank’ being ‘cast forth from all ecclesiastical communion and made incapable of exercising their ministry’.
We, therefore, on the evidence of this Notice, have determined that Archbishop Hamlett, Bishop Appleton and Bishop Santiago have themselves confirmed their departure from the communion of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite by creating a novel jurisdiction of their own. From the 4th April 2005 the signatories of this Notice, Hamlett, Appleton, and Santiago, are deposed and excommunicated, and, being no longer members of this Church, all their actions on and after this date are of no force or effect within the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite.
Signed and Sealed by the Most Reverend Michael Wright, Metropolitan Bishop and Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of Europe, on behalf of himself and of the Right Reverend Victor Manuel Cruz-Blanco, Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of the Caribbean and New Granada, and of the Right Reverend Samuel Mzukisi Banzana, Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of Umzi wase Tiyopiya.
Signed etc.
CRISIS IN THE HCC-WR : A CHRONOLOGICAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION: Although this crisis has only recently become public knowledge it had its beginning in November 2004. At the time it was a matter known only to the members of the Archdiocesan Council of Advice and, as it developed, it was Reported to the College of Bishops. With the publication of the most recent April/May Number of Unreformed Archbishop Hamlett’s version of events is now widely known. The actual course of events is set down here in chronological order. The further important questions arising from these events are dealt with in appendices to this paper.
NOVEMBER 6th 2004. At a meeting of the Archdiocesan Council of Advice Archbishop Hamlett announces that from henceforth administration of the consecrated host at the Mass shall be directly in the mouth and not in the hand. Bishop Wright objects strongly, saying that such a declaration must first come before the College of Bishops for a decision.
NOVEMBER 22nd 2004. Archbishop Hamlett sends message to Bishop Wright and other members of the Council of Advice saying that he has withdrawn the statement about oral reception ‘absolutely and completely’. Soon after this Bishop Wright visits the Archbishop at Stoke on Trent and the matter is regarded as past and over.
JANUARY 31st 2005. Copies of the February/March number of Unreformed start arriving. On page 10 there is an article by the Archbishop on Confession in which it is stated that only sins confessed to a priest receive absolution. The absolution in the Mass in no more than a prayer. The quotation in the article is that of Archdeacon Garner, but it is a slightly milder form based on much earlier pamphlet written by the Archbishop himself which reads as follows:
I MAKE MY CONFESSION AT MASS WHEN I JOIN IN SAYING THE GENERAL CONFESSION AT THE COMMUNION DEVOTIONS, (YE WHO DO TRULY REPENT YOU OF YOUR SINS ... ETC.
You have already answered your question when you said that you join in saying the >General Confession= at Mass. When you use the Sacrament of Penance, you make a particular confession. In other words, you name, spell out, the particular sins you have actually committed. This you cannot do in a general confession. The prayer said by the priest following the General Confession is not an absolution; it is a prayer that the sins of the congregation may be forgiven, not an assurance that they are forgiven. To receive such assurance, which is what absolution means, it is necessary for the priest to know what sins have been committed; for he has Christ's authority to forgive or not to forgive sin (St John 20: 23)
(From Allentown Tract No 5 - ‘Why go to confession?’ dating from 1997)
FEBRUARY 7th 2005. Bishop Wright begins to prepare a letter to the Archbishop pointing out the implications of the article in Unreformed. The letter recommends that the statements of this kind in Unreformed and the earlier pamphlets should be withdrawn in favour of an assurance made by Archbishop Hamlett in a letter sent to a lay member of the Archdiocese in September 2000. The Archbishop had then written Private Confession (meaning here the confession made privately and silently to God during the 'Communion Devotions’) is in no way inferior to sacramental confession.
FEBRUARY 12th 2005 The next meeting of the Council of Advice is held at Stoke on Trent. The minutes of the previous meeting record nothing about the dispute of the 6th November. After the meeting is over an envelope containing a statement from the Archbishop is handed to every member. In the statement the Archbishop claims that the matter of receiving at Mass is still open and that he is determined to pursue the policy he had put forward in November - though with regard to the sensibilities of some individuals. The College of Bishops has still not been consulted about this. After the meeting Bishop Wright posts the letter he had prepared.
FEBRUARY 17th 2005. Bishop Wright sends a Report to all members of the College of Bishops about the two problems which had arisen. In the Report attention is drawn to Archbishop Hamlett’s letter of September 2000. The Report also mentions that a reply is expected from the Archbishop which should resolve the problem.
FEBRUARY 18th 2005 Archbishop Hamlett sends a brief reply to Bishop Wright saying, "Thank you for your letter, I have read your arguments with interest, but I am afraid that they do not convince me of the need to abandon orthodox Catholic teaching on the subject of the Sacrament of Penance. Sincerely etc.” (The implications of this confirmation of Archbishop Hamlett’s earlier statements will be discussed in an Appendix. The aim at present is to give a chronological account of events.)
FEBRUARY 21st 2005: Advance copies of a second Report by Bishop Wright are sent to Archbishop Hamlett and Bishop Appleton. The Report seeks clear responses from the Archbishop to the two issues set out in the first Report. The Archbishop is warned that his teaching on Confession contains doctrinal error. At the time a technical problem prevents Bishop Wright from receiving the reply sent by Archbishop Hamlett on 18th Feb. But this is corrected before any other copies of the Report are sent out.
FEBRUARY 22nd 2005. A message is sent to the College of Bishops signed by Bishop Appleton and Archdeacon Garner. The message contains a series of five concerns about the behaviour of Bishop Wright. No response from Bishop Wright is sought. Bishop Banzana objects to the involvement of Archdeacon Garner in a matter which concerns the College of Bishops alone.
FEBRUARY 25th 2005. Archbishop Hamlett sends a Statement to the College of Bishops in response to Bishop Wright’s second Report. In answer to the matter of receiving communion the Archbishop denies there had been any intention to legislate on the matter. The response to the second issue on Confession consists of a personal attack on Bishop Wright and no more.
MARCH 6th 2005. The Archbishop sends the list of five concerns (22nd Feb.), now become charges against Bishop Wright, to the members of the College of Bishops. The Bishops are asked to consider the evidence brought by Bishop Appleton and Archdeacon Garner in support of the charges. (In this evidence the same doctrinal error over Confession is repeated more than once). The bishops are asked to give a verdict within fourteen days and are requested to refrain from any discussion. On the same day Bishop Santiago replies agreeing to the permanent suspension of Bishop Wright. Bishop Santiago at no time makes contact with Bishop Wright to find out his defence against the charges.
MARCH 7th 2005. Bishop Wright sends a third Report to all members of the College of Bishops reviewing the course of the controversy and its canonical implications. In the report, Bishop Wright, acting in his individual capacity as a bishop charged with the preservation of sound doctrine, declares that by his knowing persistence in false doctrine Archbishop Hamlett and those of like mind have departed from the communion of the HCC-WR. All references to Archbishop Hamlett and Bishop Appleton are removed from the HCC-WR website.
MARCH 8th 2005. Archbishop Hamlett issues a Notice of Suspension on Bishop Wright without waiting for the verdict of the rest of the College of Bishops.
MARCH 9th 2005. Archbishop Hamlett demands a verdict from Bishop Banzana. In reply Bishop Banzana says he will reply when a meeting of the College of Bishops is convened.
MARCH 19th 2005. Archbishop Hamlett circulates a limited number of copies of A Pastoral Statement. This statement is to be published in a significantly altered form in the April/May Number of Unreformed.
MARCH 20th 2005. Bishop Rajah Row replies to Archbishop Hamlett condemning the suspension of Bishop Wright and repudiating the Archbishop’s teaching on Confession. Meanwhile Bishop Banzana continues to object to the way in which the Archbishop has dealt with this whole matter and presses for a meeting of the College of Bishops.
MARCH 21st 2005. Four Trustees of the Archdiocesan Trust resign.
MARCH 23rd 2005. Archbishop Hamlett sends a faxed message to Bishop Banzana threatening him with suspension for schismatic behaviour.
MARCH 30th. 2005. At a meeting in Cornwall it is agreed to set up a new Trust with the title ‘The Diocese of Europe TFCC’ entirely separate from the Archdiocesan Trust.
APRIL 4th 2005. The Archbishop signs a notice of deposition on Bishop Banzana for persistent schismatic behaviour. The Notice is published as though from the College of Bishops, but the only signatures are those of Hamlett, Appleton, and Santiago.
APRIL 7th 2005. The Archbishop reports that he has appointed Bishop Lamani to replace Bishop Banzana. Bishop Lamani left the HCC-WR in 2004 after he had been suspended by Archbishop Hamlett himself.
APPENDIX ONE. Is Archbishop Hamlett Propagating false doctrine?
Based on the statements made in the Pamphlet Why go to Confession and the article in the February-March number of Unreformed, the following eight assertions are, according to Archbishop Hamlett, orthodox Catholic teaching on the subject of the Sacrament of Penance.
1. Sins are not properly confessed in the General Confession nor are they absolved. There is no absolution, just a prayer.
2. The reason why sins are not forgiven is because ... it is necessary for the priest to know what sins have been committed.
3. The priest must have personal knowledge of the specific sins of the penitent before he can pronounce or refuse absolution in the name of Christ.
4. Only those sins which are specifically mentioned to the priest confessor can be forgiven.
5. Absolution means receiving assurance that sins are forgiven.
6. Post-baptismal sin can only be forgiven through personal and explicit confession to a priest.
7. Sins are forgiven only when the penitent receives assurance that they have been forgiven.
8 Assurance can be obtained only through the form of confession to a priest.
It was these statements, the assertions they contained, and the refusal to withdraw them which forced Bishop Wright to take the action he did. The error they contain is more profound than appears at first. This is a denial of the omnipotence of God and of His direct living access to mankind through the Holy Spirit. The authority given to the priest to pronounce forgiveness enables him to act as an intercessor with God for the penitent, but not as His sole accredited agent.
Remarkably, it is Archbishop Hamlett who has acknowledged his own statements to be false.
In the April/May number of Unreformed the Archbishop answers further questions about Confession (pages 4 & 5). Take the following questions and answers as examples:
WHAT IF A MORTAL SIN IS FORGOTTEN?
It is unlikely that such sin can be forgotten. But if a mortal sin is genuinely forgotten it is covered by the words “.... forgive thee all thy sins...”
With this answer out go assertions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 above. Even mortal sins not made known to the priest are forgiven.
I’VE HEARD SOME SAY THAT THEY DON'T FEEL FORGIVEN AFTER RECEIVING THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE.
It is Catholic teaching that the Sacrament of Penance, like all the Sacraments, is always efficacious because in it Christ is at work through the power of the Holy Spirit. From this it follows that the Sacrament of Penance is not wrought by either the priest or the penitent but solely by the power of God the Holy Spirit It is however worth stressing, and in answer to your question, that the fruits of the Sacrament of Penance, as in the celebration of all the Sacraments, depend upon the disposition of the one who receives it.
So absolution is not the same as assurance of the forgiveness of sins, the one is the consequence of the other and assertions 6 and 8 go out with the rest. The Archbishop’s emphasis on the need for a right disposition seems very close to the Bishop Wright’s Protestant Anglicanism - perhaps it is Catholic after all.
Archbishop Hamlett himself acknowledges that he has uttered false doctrinal statements in both the pamphlets and the article - otherwise what need of these retreats from positions occupied earlier? On the other hand Bishop Wright was justified in declaring them false. The Archbishop has contradicted his own insistence that they represent the orthodox Catholic teaching on the subject of the Sacrament of Penance he had ‘taught consistently over the past years’.
Bishop Wright had no choice but to separate himself (and in a public fashion) from Archbishop Hamlett who, although metropolitan, has now admitted publicly that he has been teaching false doctrine and has forfeited, thereby, his position and membership of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite.
APPENDIX TWO. Archbishop Hamlett and the College of bishops HCC-WR.
It is a fundamental characteristic of the Catholic Church that it is ‘collegiate’. This means that no member of the College, not even the Metropolitan, may do anything of consequence without the consent of all (Constitutional Canon Title I;10). This was the basis of the protest made by Bishop Wright when Archbishop Hamlett made his announcement on 6th November 2004.
It was Bishop Wright’s first Report which alerted the members of the College to the two problems which affected the whole HCC-WR and of which they had still not been informed by Archbishop Hamlett. The Archbishop’s first official communication to the College relayed the five concerns signed by Bishop Appleton and Archdeacon Garner (22nd Feb.). This was followed up on 25th by the reply to the second Report. In both cases the College was informed but not consulted.
This was followed up by the detailed charges sent out on 6th March with the request that the bishops should not discuss the matter, merely make known their opinion.
On the 8th March Archbishop Hamlett suspended Bishop Wright claiming he had a right to suspend his subordinate unilaterally - even though that bishop is a fellow member of the College of Bishops and, as in the earlier case of Bishop Price and Bishop Lamani, cannot be suspended or removed without the approval of the College.
By the 4th of April Archbishop Hamlett could find the support of only two other bishops, Appleton and Santiago - out of the College of seven, The three of them undertook to sign a document purporting to depose Bishop Banzana on a totally vague and unproven charge. As in the case of Bishop Wright there was an entire disregard for due process, for collegiality, and for the Canonical Regulations of the HCC-WR. This is a truly schismatic act by all three.
APPENDIX THREE. The charges against Bishop Wright and Bishop Banzana.
On the 8th March Archbishop Hamlett issued a Notice of Suspension against Bishop Wright on the basis of the following assertion: The offences committed by Bishop Wright are numerous but chiefly because he has endangered the unity of the Church by issuing grossly deceptive statements. Neither the numerous offences nor the grossly deceptive statements are in any way specified. Where there are no specific charges there can be no judgement formed and no sentence passed. If the ArchbishopHamlett had in mind the removal of his own name from the HCC-WR website, he should himself have placed the whole matter, being one of doctrine, before the College of Bishops long before matters came to that point.
A far more extreme example is that of the Deposition of Bishop Samuel Banzana. Deposition means removal from the sacred ministry. Bishop Banazana’s is asserted to have committed the offence of persistent schismatic behaviour. The notice is countersigned by Appleton and Santiago while Hamlett acts as both prosecutor and judge.
As this chronological record shows, the opinions of Archbishop Hamlett on the issues of Reception and Confession are remarkably inconsistent for one who claims total consistency in his teaching, but the evidence of the pamphlets and the Unreformed article nail down his real belief. The actions he has taken in South Africa, however, cannot be withdrawn; Archbishop Hamlett has created there an entirely new Church headed by the disgraced Lamani. The Clergy and Laity of the DUWT are unanimous in support of Bishop Banzana - as their Memorandum of Friday 8th April to the College of Bishops (all seven) shows without doubt.
APPENDIX FOUR. Assessment.
Archbishop Hamlett has two bishops to support him. Of the four others, the protest of one has been ignored, two others have been either suspended or deposed by Hamlett on the basis of charges which are no more than unproven assertions. The fourth bishop is a provisional member of the College and his view appears not to have been taken into account.
This chronological survey discloses an attempt by Archbishop Hamlett, with the connivance of two episcopal colleagues, to subvert the Constitution of the HCC-WR in favour of an autocracy centred upon himself - a flawed papalism.
All the statements in this paper are backed up by documentary evidence save the minutes of the meeting of November 6th - which were never recorded for confirmation by the Council of Advice.
APPENDIX FIVE. Why the new title?
We have taken steps to add a new title while continuing to be the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite. Our identity is secured by what we believe, not by what we call ourselves. The change is therefore cosmetic in character, but serves, especially in the UK, to distinguish ourselves from Archbishop Hamlett’s group of like-minded individuals. Archbishop Hamlett will continue to claim his jurisdiction as the only legitimate HCC-WR, but its surrender, under his direction, to false doctrine (including papalism) means that we need to add a title which indicates the true collegiate character of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite. The title chosen is 'The Family of Catholic Churches'. By the love poured out upon us by the Holy Trinity we are indeed a family.
EVENTS IN INDIA
As reported above, Bishop Rajah Row, the Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of India HCC-WR opposed the suspension of Bishop Wright and the manner in which it was done.
On 29th April 2005 Bishop Wright received a faxed letter from Bishop Rajah Row saying that his Diocesan Standing Committee had met on the 18th of the month and had outvoted their Bishop by 9 to 7 over his support for Bishop Wright and had required him to support Archbishop Hamlett in all his actions. Several other complaints against Bishop Rajah Row were passed by the majority of the Committee and finally the Bishop and his supporters, being the minority, were saddled with the total financial responsibility for debts amounting to Four Thousand Pounds (UK)incurred in the running of the diocese since it linked up with the HCC-WR. The minority group were given till 18th May to change their minds. Faced with what was in Indian terms an enormous debt, Bishop Rajah Row and his supporters capitulated and sent a further letter to Bishop Wright informing him of their revised decision to support Archbishop Hamlett.
In spite of this surender Bishop Rajah Row has not been reinstated and it is not known whether he and his people are still responsible for the debt. What is known is that his son, Archdeacon Kalakuri, has been made responsible by Archbishop Hamlett for the running of the (debt-free?) diocese. These events are also backed up by documentary evidence as reported by Bishop Rajah Row himself.
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS AND TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE SUSPENSION OF BISHOP MICHAEL WRIGHT BY ARCHBISHOP HAMLETT
A SUBMISSION ON THE ILLEGALITY OF THIS SENTENCE
BY BISHOP MICHAEL WRIGHT.
1. INTRODUCTION: On Sunday 6th March 2005 the members of the College of Bishops were notified of ‘charges’ against Bishop Wright and were asked to give a ‘considered judgement’ within fourteen days. On Tuesday 8th March Archbishop Hamlett sent out a Notice suspending Bishop Wright immediately, entirely, and permanently. By Tuesday 8th March only Bishop Santiago had notified Archbishop Hamlett of his agreement with the charges - his memo of agreement was dated 6th March. By the standards of anyone except the late Joseph Stalin this is an extraordinary way of conducting the trial and sentencing of a bishop by his fellow bishops.
2. ARE THEY ‘CHARGES’ OR MERELY ‘CONCERNS’? The original document on which the whole case against Bishop Wright is based consists of a brief list of five ‘concerns’ signed by Bishop Appleton and Archdeacon Garner and dated 22nd February. This document is part of the package which has been sent out by the Archbishop. By Sunday 6th March these ‘concerns’ had become ‘charges’. Since this change is made in a document signed by Archbishop Hamlett himself on 5th March, it would appear that it is he who is the real sponsor of the ‘charges’ and that he is playing the role of prosecutor as well as of judge.
3. THE ELABORATION OF THE CHARGES: To the list of ‘concerns’ was added an elaboration of the ‘concerns’ which turns them, or so it seems, into ‘charges’. Do these ‘charges’ have any substance at all? It is necessary to examine them in some detail.
4. THE FIRST CHARGE: Charge (a) - That Bishop Wright questioned the validity of a Sacrament of the Church, namely the Sacrament of Penance. This is, of course, untrue. In a letter sent to Archbishop Hamlett on 12th February Bishop Wright wrote “This is not an attack on ‘‘individual confession’ (i.e. private confession) which is to be regarded as a most valuable sacramental ministry, but it is a reminder that, according to the view expressed in the two quotations, it has definite and serious limitations.” The ‘view expressed’ was that of Archbishop Hamlett himself - as set out in the then current number of ‘Unreformed’ and also in a much earlier pamphlet on confession dating from 1997. Far from questioning its validity, Bishop Wright makes use of private confession, a fact which could be confirmed by simply asking him.
The twisted logic behind the ‘charge’ is that someone who likes brown bread must hate white bread. There is no reason at all why the same person should not like both. This twisted logic sees Bishop Wright’s defence of the sacramental nature of the Confession and Absolution set within the Mass as a questioning of the validity of private confession. This ‘charge’ is based on confused reasoning and knowing misrepresentation, its prolixity does not make up for its falsity.
5. THE SECOND CHARGE: Charge (b) - That Bishop Wright made reckless accusations that took no account of clear evidence to the contrary. The first instance of alleged recklessness is a reference to a meeting of the Archdiocesan Council of Advice on November 6th 2004. Bishop Wright’s withdrawal from the meeting followed upon a Statement and directive made by Archbishop Hamlett, one for which he did not have the required unanimous approval of the College of Bishops. The intervention was not reckless but necessary. On 22nd November Archbishop Hamlett withdrew ‘absolutely and completely’ the Statement made to that meeting of the Council. In the second instance Bishop Wright was pointing out that both the 1997 pamphlet and ‘Unreformed’ promoted false teaching. It was an act of responsibility not recklessness to alert first the Archbishop himself and subsequently the College of Bishops to this error.
If the College, and it is most unlikely, did agree that Bishop Wright was reckless in his behaviour, Bishop Wright should be required to apologise, not to be suspended ‘immediately, entirely, and permanently’.
6. THE THIRD CHARGE: Charge (c) - That Bishop Wright admitted to an impaired union with his fellow bishops. It is clear that Bishop Appleton and Archdeacon Garner (who are presumably the authors of these ‘Charges’) do not understand the difference between harmony and union, especially when applied to the very specific issue of sacramental union. Two bishops may disagree and create disharmony on a whole range of matters without regarding each other as no longer members of the same Church. In the elaboration of Charge (a) there is an example of this. It is stated that the inclusion of the General Confession and Absolution in the Catholic Book of Common Prayer ‘has been controversial and a source of unease among many clergy who see observance of the Sacrament of Penance rapidly declining. They attribute this to the erroneous belief that General Confession is a substitute.’ It would appear from this claim that there are many clergy (unspecified) who have always been in a state of disharmony with the official liturgy of the HCC-WR, but have still remained in sacramental union. It is improbable that there are ‘many’ clergy who hold these views.
This charge is too confused to be worth considering.
7. THE FOURTH CHARGE: Charge (d) - That Bishop Wright has dishonoured the Office of the Metropolitan by issuing ultimatums and threats against him. It was necessary for Bishop Wright to seek clarification concerning the two problems described in the First Report to the College of Bishops. The second issue in particular, being one of false doctrine, required a swift response from Archbishop Hamlett. It was also necessary to warn the Archbishop that, depending on his answer, the Canons of the HCC-WR would be involved. Archbishop Hamlett replied to Bishop Wright’s original letter within four days, he responded to the Second Report within two days by issuing a Statement. To describe this as ‘dishonouring the Office of the Metropolitan’ is no more than wishful thinking.
8. THE FIFTH CHARGE: Charge (e) - That Bishop Wright ignored a lawful request from the Metropolitan to withdraw untruthful and damaging assertions from the Church’s official website. Bishop Wright removed the reference to a meeting with the ‘Coptic group’ on the ‘events’ page, but forgot that there were two further and more general references to friendly relations - with the Ukraine Patriarchate and the ‘Coptic group’ - on the ‘ecumenical’ page. When his attention was drawn to this Bishop Wright removed both references immediately and faxed an apology to the Archbishop at the same time. Why this oversight should now be regarded as an offence is a mystery. Archbishop Hamlett must surely have forgiven Bishop Wright this mistake.
9. EVALUATION OF CHARGES: The following is an evaluation of the ‘charges’:
Charge (a) - entirely and knowingly false.
Charge (b) - actions of Bishop Wright were necessary and responsible, not reckless.
Charge (c) - by confusing ‘harmony’ with sacramental union the authors of the ‘charge’ have rendered it meaningless.
Charge (d) - this charge is based on wishful thinking only.
Charge (e) - this matter has been dealt with and an apology rendered to Archbishop Hamlett.
10. COMMENT: The Canonical Regulations for Discipline Nos. 8 - 17 set out the offences which are chargeable. None of these ten offences has been invoked by Bishop Appleton and Archdeacon Garner. The five so-called ‘charges’ discussed above have no basis in the Canonical Regulations of the HCC-WR. They are not ‘charges’ but an attempt to give a semblance of legality to an abuse of ‘due process’ by Archbishop Hamlett. It is to be regretted also that Bishop Santiago has made no attempt whatsoever to provide a ‘considered judgement’.
11. THE FUTURE: It is a matter of concern that a spirit of autocratic and arbitrary leadership has entered into the jurisdiction headed by Archbishop Hamlett, quite contrary to the essentially collegiate nature of the Catholic Church. It is to be feared that it will continue to cause division and disillusionment.
+ M.M.W.
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS
FROM: THE DIOCESE OF UMZI WASE TIYOPIYA
SUBJECT: RECENT EVENTS WITHIN THE HCC-WR
DATE: 8 APRIL 2005
Kindly be advised that a meeting of the clergy and members of the Council of Advice of the Diocese of Umzi Wase Tiyopiya was held on Friday, 08 April 2005 at the Cathedral of St. Athanasius, New Brighton, Port Elizabeth. See attached attendance register for reference and confirmation.
Be further advised that the aforesaid meeting specifically looked at recent events within the HCC-WR as they affect the Diocese of Umzi Wase Tiyopiya. This meeting considered all correspondence the Bishop Ordinary has at his disposal on the recent events within the HCC-WR together with correspondence between the Archbishop and Archdeacon Gwelana who is both the Diocesan Secretary and the Chancellor-General of the HCC-WR.
This meeting unanimously resolved as follows:
1. That it doesn’t accept the action taken against its Bishop Ordinary, the Rt. Rev. Samuel Mzukisi Banzana.
2. That it does not accept the decision of the Archbishop with respect to Bishop Lulamile Lamani and Fr. Max Mabope.
3. That it does not accept the imposition of Bishop Lulamile Lamani as Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of Umzi Wase Tiyopiya.
4. That the current dispute between the Archbishop and bishop Michael Wright is of a doctrinal nature and that it must be dealt with in terms of the Constitutional Canons and Canonical Regulations of the HCC-WR. That it supports the view expressed consistently by its Bishop Ordinary as reflected in all his correspondence to the Archbishop that a meeting of the College of Bishops must be convened to resolve the issues in dispute.
6. That it regards the College of Bishops of the HCC-WR as having seven members who are Archbishop Hamlett, Bishop Appleton, Bishop Wright, Bishop Banzana, Bishop Cruz-Blanco, Bishop Rajah Row and Bishop Santiago.
7. That this diocese still regards itself as a part of the HCC-WR.
Signatures:
+ S.M.Banzana, A.M.Gwelana, B.Jamda, C.Marela, S.W.Vatala, T.A Danster, S.M.Geyi T.W.Xate, T.Nquelo, G.Sikani, T.Toto, A.Waka, J.S.Nkonyakazi, M.M. Mali, B.Sam, (and by phone) T.Tekesti
COMMENT. Archbishop Hamlett claimed to depose Bishop Banzana on the grounds of persitsent schismatic behaviour which Hamlett linked with Canonical Regulation (Discipline) 14: Of actions bringing this Church into disrepute. The charge is so vague that it impossible to know what was being referred to. The most likely reason was that Bishop Samuel, in private correspondence with Archbishop Hamlett, insisted that the action already taken by Hamlett unilaterally against Bishop Wright involved matters of doctrine and must, therefore, be brought before the whole College of Bishops. At that point Bishop Wright, as the accused, and Archbishop Hamlett and Bishop Appleton as the accusers, would not have been able to cast a vote, leaving Bishops Banzana, Cruz-Blanco, Rajah Row and Santiago to come to a decision. (Most likely a stalemate would have followed, as the four bishops were required to come to a unanimous decision.) Bishop Banzana was informed of this deposition and was never given an opportunity to answer the charges. Archbishop Hamlett claimed that this action was authorised by a College of Bishops of the HCC-WR comprising his personal selection of himself and his two associates, Appleton and Santiago - thus creating a new and totally uncanonical Synod and involving, automatically, a departure from the HCC-WR.
TEXT OF THE INITIAL LETTER ON THE SUBJECT OF ARCHBISHOP HAMLETT'S TEACHING ON CONFESSION
This letter by Bishop Wright was posted on the 12th February after the meeting of the Council of Advice.
Dear Archbishop,
This is not the letter I would wish to write, but it is one that I feared would become necessary. The reason for writing arises from your remarks on confession in ‘Recent question addressed to the Archbishop ...’ ('Unreformed' Feb.- March 2005, p.10). The article contains a denial of the sacramental reality and spiritual efficacy of the Absolution set out in our official Order of the Mass. You quote, as authority for this claim, a passage in the pamphlet ‘Joining the Family’ written by Archdeacon Garner. I reproduce below the text from which the quotation is taken, underlining the section you have used:
Garner
True, there is a 'general confession' and absolution at Mass, but that is a prayer by the priest that your sins may be forgiven; it is not an assurance that they will be. Such assurance is not possible simply because the priest does not know the sins of the congregation. If you privately confess them with honesty and sincerity he is authorised, as Christ's minister, to give you complete and assured forgiveness.
This quotation echoes a statement set out in your own pamphlet ‘Why should I go to Confession’.
Hamlett
Q. I make my confession at Mass when I join in saying the General Confession at the Communion Devotions, (Ye who do truly repent of your sins .... etc) What further need is there?
A. You have already answered your question when you said that you join in saying the 'General Confession' at Mass. When you use the Sacrament of Penance, you make a particular confession. In other words, you name, spell out, the particular sins you have actually committed. This you cannot do in a general confession. The prayer said by the priest following the general confession is not an absolution; it is a prayer that the sins of the congregation may be forgiven, not an assurance that they are forgiven. To receive such assurance, which is what absolution means, it is necessary for the priest to know what sins have been committed; for he has Christ's authority to forgive or not to forgive sin (St John 20: 23).
Aware that you have expressed such views over many years, I now regret that for the sake of a spurious harmony I have refrained hitherto from making known to you my concern over such statements. It is a serious matter indeed to downgrade what is quite clearly a sacramental act embedded within the wider sacramental context of the Mass.
To avoid confusion between the two forms of Confession and Absolution, I will use the word ‘individual confession’ for the form made in private before a priest, with mention of specific sins; the form used during the course of the Mass I will designate as ‘corporate confession’. Both forms are personal and both are sacramental, the former providing also an opportunity for spiritual guidance.
In your own pamphlet quoted above you state that “The prayer said by the priest following the general confession is not an absolution;” Although the confession is made outwardly in a corporate form, the people involved are inwardly acknowledging before God their personal weaknesses, failings and sins and are seeking forgiveness. Nevertheless you say that the absolution given by the priest is no more than “a prayer that the sins of the congregation may be forgiven, not an assurance that they are forgiven.”
The downgrading of the absolution given in this corporate context is followed by a definition of Absolution - “To receive such assurance, which is what absolution means ...”. This definition is surprising. Absolution is the authoritative declaration that God has forgiven the sins confessed, whether they are expressed openly or acknowledged inwardly. Assurance is the realisation by the penitent that his sins have indeed been forgiven. The one is not the same as the other.
You then continue: “... it is necessary for the priest to know what sins have been committed; for he has Christ's authority to forgive or not to forgive sin (St John 20: 23).” Here you are saying that the priest can only absolve those sins about which he has personal knowledge. Most assuredly the priest has Christ’s authority to remit sin, but, even in the circumstances of ‘individual confession’, does he know all the sins of the penitent? After he has made known his personal sins the penitent adds, “... and for all my sins which I cannot now remember.” Nevertheless the priest goes on to declare that he absolves him from all his sins, both the openly confessed and the unconfessed (because the penitent cannot call the latter to mind). According to your pamphlet the penitent goes away with only a portion of his sins absolved, that portion which he has revealed to the priest.
The message of both quotations is clear: only through ‘individual confession’ is a believer able to receive forgiveness, and even in this case forgiveness is by no means complete. All of us, therefore, go about in a state of unconfessed and unforgiven sin. Following your argument, we come to receive Communion in this state of unworthiness and, as St. Paul warns us, eat and drink condemnation to ourselves thereby. Archbishop Hamlett and Archdeacon Garner are no exception. This is not an attack on ‘‘individual confession’ which is to be regarded as a most valuable sacramental ministry, but it is a reminder that, according to the view expressed in the two quotations, it has definite and serious limitations.
It is necessary to go further to see what are the ecclesiological consequences of this assertion. If forgiveness is possible only through the specific form of ‘individual confession’ then Christ himself is totally dependent on a particular group of men to make effective the eternal salvation He has won on behalf of all mankind. The Church is not in reality the sacramental Body of Christ (as our Constitutional Canons acknowledge it to be), it is an organisation administering one particular form of a Sacrament (individual confession) without which no other Sacraments can function and Christ Himself cannot save.
Thus the assertions made in the two quotations, while purporting to be the official teaching of our Church, reduce the HCC-WR to a self-defeating silliness. The motive behind these assertions is not difficult to discover; it arises from the Nineteenth Century desire of the Anglo-Catholic movement within Anglicanism to put ‘individual confession’ ‘ back on the map’ of a too Protestant Church. As a result the whole matter became trivialised, dividing Anglicans into those who ‘do’ and those who ‘don’t’ - wear vestments, stand at the west side of the altar, call the priest Father, receive communion orally, etc. ’ Those who ‘do’ are ‘Catholic’ those who ‘don’t’ are ‘Protestant’.
This trivialisation obscures the essential element required if we are to be saved through Christ for ever, namely true repentance. It is the need for repentance which gives purpose and effect to both forms of confession and absolution, as well as to the authority to forgive sins bestowed by Christ upon His Church. Because the Church is Christ’s Body and we are all ‘members one of another’ it is fitting that the exercise of this authority should be the special concern of bishops and priests, as is also the ministry of spiritual guidance.
A venerable canon of the Western Church declares:
‘Some assert that we should confess our sins to God alone, but some think that they should be confessed to the priest, each of which practices is followed not without great fruit in Holy Church. . . . Confession made to God purges sins, but that made to the priest teaches how they are to be purged.’ (Council of Chalons in 813, canon xxxiii).
Fortunately this wise advice has been taken up by yourself. In 2000 a member of the Archdiocese read the passage in Fr. Garner’s pamphlet and asked you whether this was leading toward the amendment of Canonical Regulation (Diocese) 5. You replied as follows:
“I hasten to assure you that there is no intention whatsoever to amend Canonical Regulation 5 to read that members in good standing are 'required to make use of the Sacrament of Penance'. 'Open' to the use of the Sacrament means precisely what it says, (in fact, I, personally, was responsible for the inclusion of the word 'open'.) Like the Eastern Church, we make no rules as to the frequency of Confession. The point about 'open' is that the matter is entirely subjective. Only an individual can know whether there is a need for sacramental confession.
Private confession (meaning, presumably, the confession made privately and silently to God in ‘corporate confession’) is in no way inferior to sacramental confession (meaning ‘individual confession’). The difference between the two should be made clear. Confession within the context of the Mass is a general confession, whilst sacramental confession is a particular confession - a personal meeting with Christ as He speaks His words of absolution through the lips of His earthly minister.”
The HCC-WR has retained the ‘communion devotions’ from its Anglican heritage as a means of ensuring that all members come to receive the Sacrament of the Altar in a state of true and earnest repentance and in love and charity with their neighbours. Assurance that a true transaction of penitence and absolution has taken place lies not so much in the form of confession, nor in whatever feeling of assurance may be forthcoming, but in a steady transformation of life and conduct.
I would advise that the kind of sentiments expressed in the two pamphlets and the ‘Unreformed’ article should be withdrawn - we have been brought by the Holy Spirit to a point far beyond such things. We need rather to consult, first with our episcopal brethren and then with the rest of our brothers and sisters in Christ, how to meet the obligations and opportunities that our further advance along the Way of Christ requires.
Yours, etc.
TEXT OF THE THIRD REPORT SENT BY BISHOP WRIGHT TO THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS SENT 7TH MARCH 2005
Dear Brothers in Christ
PART ONE
A PRESENT CRISIS:
On or about the 18th February I sent you a Report saying that I hoped to receive soon a letter from the Archbishop. The Archbishop’s reply was faxed to me on the 18th February also, but its arrival was delayed. The reply is such that the problem has not been resolved and the crisis is upon us. I ask you, therefore, to read very carefully the contents of this report, even though it is of considerable length. Archbishop Hamlett wrote:
“Thank you for your letter, I have read your arguments with interest, but I am afraid that they do not convince me of the need to abandon orthodox Catholic teaching on the subject of the Sacrament of Penance. Sincerely etc.”
THE ARCHBISHOP’S VIEW OF ‘ORTHODOX CATHOLIC TEACHING’:
This reply refers to the passage in the most recent ‘Unreformed’ which I quoted in the first Report but this merely reproduces in a milder form the Archbishop’s own teaching found in a pamphlet, ‘Why go to confession?’ written as long ago as 1997. It is most important to know what it is that the Archbishop regards as ‘orthodox Catholic teaching on Penance’. The quotation below comes from the original pamphlet. The Archbishop wrote:
“I MAKE MY CONFESSION AT MASS WHEN I JOIN IN SAYING THE GENERAL CONFESSION AT THE COMMUNION DEVOTIONS, (YE WHO DO TRULY REPENT YOU OF YOUR SINS ... ETC.
You have already answered your question when you said that you join in saying the
‘General Confession’ at Mass. When you use the Sacrament of Penance, you make a particular confession. In other words, you name, spell out, the particular sins you have actually committed. This you cannot do in a general confession. The prayer said by the priest following the General Confession is not an absolution; it is a prayer that the sins of the congregation may be forgiven, not an assurance that they are forgiven. To receive such assurance, which is what absolution means, it is necessary for the priest to know what sins have been committed; for he has Christ's authority to forgive or not to forgive sin (St John 20: 23)”
PART TWO
WHAT DOES THE ARCHBISHOP INTEND TO SAY:
This earlier statement by the Archbishop is much stronger than the version published in ‘Unreformed’. Is the Archbishop saying that in individual confession to a priest the Catholic Church has provided a particular, though not exclusive way, of exercising the ministry of forgiving or retaining sins based on the authority given to the Church by the Lord (St. John 20:23)? This personal ministry is of special value to those who have committed serious sins, who need to quieten troubled consciences, who seek spiritual advice, or wish to place themselves under a spiritual discipline. All of us would recognise that an absolution given in this form is sacramental - a true and eternally valid forgiveness and wiping away of sin. The problem is created when another form of confession and absolution is denied sacramental validity - implying that the authority given by Christ to His Church is limited to this one particular form of individual confession and absolution. In the quotation given above the Archbishop denies that the corporate form of confession and absolution set within the Mass is a sacramental act of forgiveness. His words give us no choice but to recognise that this denial is exactly what he means and intends.
WHAT THE ARCHBISHOP IS REALLY SAYING:
As a consequence we must look at what Archbishop Hamlett is really saying:
1. According to the Archbishop, sins are not properly confessed in the General Confession nor are they absolved. There is no absolution, just a prayer.
2. The reason why sins are not forgiven, the Archbishop says, is because ‘... it is necessary for the priest to know what sins have been committed’.
3. The Archbishop claims that the priest must have personal knowledge of the specific sins of the penitent before he can pronounce or refuse absolution in the name of Christ.
4. The Archbishop states that only those sins which are specifically mentioned to the priest confessor are forgiven.
5. The Archbishop declares that absolution means receiving assurance that sins are forgiven.
6. The Archbishop asserts that Post-baptismal sin can only be forgiven through personal and explicit confession to a priest.
7. Sins are forgiven only when the penitent receives assurance that they have been forgiven.
8 This assurance can be obtained only through the form of private confession.
TWO SURPRISING CONCLUSIONS:
Two surprising conclusions arise from the Archbishop_s view of penance:
1. Only the particular sins made known to the priest in individual confession can be forgiven. In the form of Confession given on page 538 of The Book of Catholic Common Prayer the penitent confesses his sins and continues, ‘For these and all my other sins which I cannot now remember ...’ The sins which the penitent cannot remember remain un-forgiven because, in the Archbishop’s own words, ‘... it is necessary for the priest to know what sins have been committed’.
2. According to Archbishop Hamlett’s dictum, therefore, all communicant members of the Church approach the Sacrament in a state of un-confessed and un-forgiven sin and so partake unworthily of the Body and Blood of Christ. This is as true of the penitent who has only just come from individual confession as of the worshipper who receives pardon and deliverance from all his sins during the course of the Mass.
PART THREE
FALSE DOCTRINES:
It has been necessary to write at some length in order that you may have a clear understanding of the nature of the assertions made first by the Archbishop in his pamphlet and now widely publicised in ‘Unreformed’. The Archbishop’s well-known enthusiasm for individual confession (sacramental confession as he calls it) is of long-standing, but this very recent publishing of his views in ‘Unreformed’ marks a new stage in a campaign which can only end in the introduction of compulsory individual confession for all members of the HCC-WR. The article in ‘Unreformed’ presents itself as the ‘official’ teaching of the HCC-WR backed by the authority of the Metropolitan (there is no suggestion whatever that this is a personal opinion). The article, and more especially the Archbishop’s earlier pamphlet, propagate the following false doctrines:
1. Archbishop Hamlett denies the omnipotence and pre-eminence of God in forgiving sins directly through the sacrifice of Christ. According to him, any unspoken confession of sin, either made during Mass or even at other times in the life of the believer, cannot receive forgiveness from God. (Absolution is tied to the assurance provided in private confession alone.)
2. Archbishop Hamlett claims that Christ has handed over his entire ministry of forgiveness to a particular form of individual confession and there is no other way by which He can forgive post-baptismal sin.
3. Archbishop Hamlett asserts that only sins described verbally to the priest during individual confession are forgiven. He ignores the truth that God alone knows the hearts of men and discerns and judges the spirit of true penitence or impenitence behind the confession. It is not the eternal and all-knowing God who forgives, but the priest limited by his human frailties and ignorance.
4. Archbishop Hamlett asserts that the authority to forgive or retain sins, given by Christ to His Body the Church on the evening of His Resurrection, is the exclusive prerogative of the Christian priesthood and then only through the form of private confession.
5. Archbishop Hamlett adds a further essential restriction upon Christ’s forgiveness of the penitent sinner - that although he must confess privately to a priest, only the sins he enumerates are forgiven.
6. Archbishop Hamlett promotes a version of ‘orthodox Catholic teaching on the subject of the Sacrament of Penance’ which teaches that all believers, whether they have used the form of the corporate confession in the Mass, or the form of individual and private confession to a priest immediately before Mass, come alike to make their Communion in a state of un-forgiven sin, bringing condemnation upon themselves.
7. Archbishop Hamlett creates a new kind of Church which is not the Sacramental Body of Christ, as our Constitutional Canons acknowledge it to be, but is an organisation in which Christ Himself is totally dependent upon a particular group of men using a particular form of confession to make effective the eternal salvation He has won on behalf of all mankind.
PART FOUR
THE ARCHBISHOP’S STATEMENT OF THE 23RD FEBRUARY:
The Archbishop has responded to two questions posed in a ‘Further Report= I sent to the College of Bishops (but not to all because of technical problems). His response is made in a Statement to the College of Bishops dated 23rd February 2005.
THE FIRST ANSWER:
The Archbishop has replied to the first question confirming the collegial character of the HCC-WR and affirming the legitimacy of both manual and oral modes of receiving communion. In addition he acknowledges that manual reception is the ‘universal practice in the earliest days of the undivided Church’. The Archbishop denies that there was any intention to legislate on the subject, but the Archbishop’s subsequent revelation about the concession he had intended to make at the Council of Advice Meeting on 6th November makes his denial unconvincing. Why was the College of Bishops not consulted first?
THE SECOND ANSWER:
The second reply is no answer to the question, ‘does he endorse, and will he continue to maintain, the teaching set out in ‘Unreformed’. The reply consists of an attack on ‘the bishop’ for keeping silent so long. The Archbishop has taken the reference to ‘spurious harmony’ to mean ‘spurious unity’ a very different thing altogether. For the sake of harmony one may ‘put up’ with something written in a pamphlet, especially when an assurance has been given by the author that it does not mean what it says. It would be more to the point if the Archbishop asked himself why, from 1997 onward, he continued to use the form of corporate confession at Mass, knowing that all who received communion from him were gravely imperilling their souls.
CONCLUSION:
The Archbishop has given some ground on the first problem over manual and oral reception. The Archbishop has evaded the second question by mounting a personal attack. The conclusion must be that Archbishop Hamlett stands by the teaching publicised in ‘Unreformed’ and set out in his earlier pamphlet; in this he is joined by Bishop John Appleton.
PART FIVE
THE RESPONSIBILITY COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL OF THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS:
In matters of the Faith the collective responsibility of the College of Bishops is not so much to rule on a dispute between two rival views as to discern the truth. Does the Archbishop’s notion of ‘orthodox Catholic teaching on the subject of the Sacrament of Penance’ agree with the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church? There is, however, a further personal responsibility laid on each individual bishop, and this is to repel false doctrine. If a bishop does not disassociate himself from false doctrine he becomes as guilty of it as the perpetrator. This underlies the charge made against ‘the bishop’ in the Archbishop’s Statement of the 23rd February. It was certainly necessary for ‘the bishop’ to express his regret for his silence in the past, but now that the Archbishop’s teaching is brought unmistakably to the notice of all, each member of the College of Bishops has to decide for himself where the truth lies, make his individual position plain, and repudiate false doctrine and its perpetrators.
THE CANONICAL REGULATIONS
Two HCC-WR Canonical Regulations on Discipline provide the initial, necessary guidelines for dealing with false doctrine. Regulation 9 reads thus:
CANONICAL REGULATION 9: OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE STANDARD OF FAITH: Holding, propagating, and persistently maintaining doctrine contrary to the Standard of Catholic Faith received by this Church shall be deemed an offence.
also
Regulation 14 reads thus:
CANONICAL REGULATION 14: OF ACTIONS BRINGING THIS CHURCH INTO DISREPUTE: Any action by any member of this Church which brings the Catholic Faith or this Church into disrepute shall be deemed an offence.
THE DECISIONS EACH BISHOP MUST MAKE:
1. Every individual bishop of the HCC-WR must make up his mind whether the Archbishop’s teaching is ‘contrary to the Standard of Catholic Faith received by this Church’.
2. If he believes that it is contrary, the bishop must next decide also whether the Archbishop both propagates and persistently maintains this teaching of his.
PERSISTENTLY PROPAGATES:
To this question my own response is as follows: the Archbishop has propagated his teaching first in pamphlet form and now in an unmistakably public form. Does he persist in this teaching? In September 2000, as pointed out in my first Report, Archbishop Hamlett was questioned by a lay member of the Archdiocese. The Archbishop replied with an assurance, ‘Private confession (meaning, presumably, the confession made privately and silently to God during the ‘Communion Devotions’) is in no way inferior to sacramental confession’. This assurance undermines completely the position taken in the pamphlet. Now the Archbishop, in ‘Unreformed’, has repeated and given even wider publicity to the original teaching of the pamphlet - without any mention whatsoever of the assurance given in September 2000. The Archbishop persists in propagating the same false doctrine, thereby bringing the Catholic Faith and the HCC-WR into disrepute.
PART SIX
DEPARTURE FROM COMMUNION:
Returning to the HCC-WR Canonical Regulations, Regulation 18 reads thus:
CANONICAL REGULATION 18: OF DEPARTURE FROM THE COMMUNION IN THE FAITH: Deliberate and knowing persistence in the offences set out in Canonical Regulations for Discipline 9 to 17 will be deemed as constituting Departure from the Communion in the Faith of this Church. Such an offender will cease to be recognised as a member of this Church and his or her name will be removed from its rolls of membership.
DELIBERATE AND KNOWING:
In the letter I sent to the Archbishop on 12th February I set out at considerable length the reason why the article in Unreformed and the pamphlet should be withdrawn His answer is placed at the top of this report. I judge this to be a ‘deliberate and knowing’ response, indicating his determination to persist knowingly in false doctrine. (You will find a copy of my letter in the appendix to this Report.)
PRECEDENT FOR CEASING TO RECOGNISE A BISHOP OF THE HCC-WR: Canonical Regulation 18 has already been used in the case of Bishop Alexander Price of New Zealand in 2002. Beginning in January 2002 there had been much correspondence with Bishop Price about his views and their incompatibility with the Constitutional Canons of the HCC-WR. It became obvious that Bishop Price had no intention of changing his views and the Archbishop, in consultation with the other members of the College of Bishops, declared that Bishop Price was no longer recognised as a member of the HCC-WR.
PART SEVEN
APPLICATION TO ARCHBISHOP HAMLETT:
This report has come to the point where I must make known my own individual decision as a member and bishop of the HCC-WR speaking on behalf of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite. This decision is made on the grounds already set out in this Report and the requirements of the Constitutional Canons and Canonical Regulations of the HCC-WR.
1. With reference to Canonical Regulation 9, Archbishop Hamlett holds, propagates, and persists in maintaining doctrine (teaching) contrary to the Standard of Catholic Faith received by this Church.
2. With reference to Canonical Regulation 14, Archbishop Hamlett, by holding and propagating false doctrine publicly, has brought the Catholic Faith and the HCC-WR into disrepute.
3. With reference to Canonical Regulation 18, Archbishop Hamlett has persisted deliberately and knowingly in the offences set out in Canonical Regulations for Discipline 9 and 14 and is deemed to have departed from the Communion in the Faith of this Church.
4. With reference to Canonical Regulation 18, Archbishop Hamlett has ceased to be recognised as a member of this Church and his name will be removed from its rolls of membership.
5. Anyone who maintains the same false doctrine as Archbishop Hamlett also ceases to be a member of this Church.
PART EIGHT
COLLEGIALITY:
The matter of collegiality has tended to be eclipsed by the doctrinal issues dealt with above. If Archbishop Hamlett had consulted properly with his episcopal colleagues, as required by Constitutional Canon I:8 before issuing directives on the manner of receiving Holy Communion and publishing unauthorised doctrinal statements, he would have been prevented from acting as he has done. If the Archbishop had consulted in the way the Canon demands, he would not have secured the unanimous agreement* required by HCC-WR Constitutional Canon Title II:8.
The present situation involves false teaching and involves the individual as well as collective responsibility of bishops for maintaining the true standard of Catholic Faith. My personal responsibility for the Faith and the provisions of our Church’s Canonical Regulations have led me to declare that Archbishop Hamlett and those who are of the same mind with him are no longer members of the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite. My initiative will provide the opportunity for other members of the College to declare their minds also.
PART NINE
RETURN TO THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS:
It is always possible for Archbishop Hamlett to return to membership of the College of Bishops if he provides not just a verbal retraction of his offending statements and the withdrawal of all documents carrying them, but a personal and sincere conversion to the authentic Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of Penance as maintained by the Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite. A mere statement is not sufficient because Archbishop Hamlett now has a recorded history of making, retracting and then reasserting his personal views and expectations. At present he holds that the views maintained in his 1997 pamphlet and the recent article in ‘Unreformed’ constitute “… orthodox Catholic teaching on the subject of the Sacrament of Penance”. Only a full, public and detailed retraction of this position will suffice.
Your brother in Christ,
+ Michael
* Constitutional Canon Title II:8 mentions the possibility of obtaining synodical decisions ‘by majority approval’ The reference to Caesarea Canon XIX, as also to Nicaea VI, shows that majority approval applies only to the election of new bishops.
P.S. As I was making the final preparations for sending this Report to the College of Bishops, I received detailed notification of the charges which Bishop Appleton and Archdeacon Garner are making against me to the College of Bishops. I would request that my brother Bishops should read carefully Charge (a), point (c). Here it is implied that the sin of murder cannot be forgiven directly by God. This is reinforced by the assertion later in the same Charge (a) that ‘only the Sacrament of Penance is effective for the forgiveness of grave sin’. I do not think it necessary to say more when the authors of the Charge commit themselves to the false doctrine set out in Part 3 subsection 1 above.
FROM THE MINUTES OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS HCC-WR HELD AT THE GETHSEMANE MONASTERY, BUCARAMANGA, COLOMBIA, ON 28TH JUNE 2005 MINUTE 1a
The Synod considered carefully the Notice of Deposition dated the Fourth of April 2005 issued against Bishop Samuel Mzukisi Banzana. It was determined that the Notice ignores due process and brings no specific evidence to substantiate the charge of ‘persistent schismatic behaviour’ (an offence which appears to have been invented for the occasion since it does not feature in the HCC-WR Canonical Regulations for Discipline). Moreover the Notice gives no proof that it issued from a legitimately constituted Synod of the HCC-WR. The nature of the document concerned demonstrates that it is the product of a minority of former Synod members. Such action is contrary to the Constitutional Canons of the HCC-WR (especially Canon Title I:8) setting aside the requirements and practice of the Ecumenical Councils. By this action the authors of this Notice have themselves confirmed their departure from the communion of the HCC-WR by creating a novel jurisdiction of their own. The signatories of this Notice, Bishops Hamlett, Appleton, and Santiago are therefore, from the Fourth of April 2005, no longer recognised as members of this Church.
COMMENT: The Synod focussed on the alleged deposition of Bishop Banzana (without trial) rather than Archbishop Hamlett's views of confession - an issue on which he could claim to be misrepresented. This action of Archbishop Hamlett was entirely contrary to the synodical nature of the Catholic Church. It amounted to an heretical 'Frankish' concept of the Catholic Church (see the articles on the History Page) entirely contrary to the Holy Tradition of the Fathers.
A DISAGREEABLE INCIDENT
In mid-July an article appeared of the Website of Archbishop Hamlett’s jurisdiction. The article was written by Canon Hughie Roberts and contained the following serious allegation:
Michael (Wright) also boasts that their new Diocesan Account already has some funds in it! I wish he had been more honest and admitted that his "funds" had been transferred illegally from the Missions, given when they were still with us.
The claim that Bishop Wright had misappropriated funds belonging to Archbishop Hamlett’s Archdiocesan Charitable Trust involved also the accusation that the Treasurer of the new Diocesan Account and the Treasurer of the congregation concerned had acted as Bishop Wright’s accomplices (although Canon Roberts seemed to be unaware of this).
Bishop Wright had no choice but to write to the Trust Secretary, with copies to all the Trustees, requiring that the statement, which amounted to an actionable libel, be withdrawn and replaced by an apology. A few days later Canon Roberts wrote explaining his behaviour:
I wrote that paragraph honestly believing that you would not keep the said funds in a separate account just to gather dust - or interest!
By Friday 22nd July the following apologies had replaced the article on the same website page:
AN APOLOGY FROM CANON HUGHIE G. ROBERTS
Having written to Bishop Wright, and received a personal reply from him, I hereby withdraw my offending article forthwith, with my assurance that it will not appear again. I also apologise unreservedly for any hurt or harm my written words may have caused Bishop Wright or his reputation. - Canon Hughie G. Roberts
A FURTHER APOLOGY
As webmaster of this site, the last article issued by Canon Hughie Roberts was inserted in trust that Canon Roberts had researched the foundation for his remarks. As he has now instructed me to withdraw that article, I do so immediately and offer my complete apologies. - The Webmaster.
Bishop Wright wrote to Canon Roberts accepting the apology on the condition that he extended the apology also to the two Church Officers involved and who would be entitled to take solicitor’s advice over the matter - and also that this report be placed on this website.
The funds concerned remain exactly where they were and will remain there until such time as the workings of Archbishop Hamlett’s Archdiocesan Trust have come under official scrutiny and decision.