Fr. Andrew Cole, a priest of the Diocese of Menevia, living in the Pontifical Beda College, Rome, and studying for a doctorate in canon law at the Pontifical Gregorian University, examines the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus.
I have yet to see an analysis that seems to harmonize with Archbishop Hepworth's statement at the recent FiF UK National Assembly that
Lay people will come into this Anglican body in communion with the Holy See in a simple process that is to be done within their community — not individually — within their community.
At the moment, it remains unclear how congregations will be received, but it is clear from the Archbishop's statement that he expects an innovative solution that is fundamentally corporate (as opposed to individually-professed statements of faith and the reception of the Sacraments of Initiation).
Cross-referencing the Apostolic Constitution and the Complementary Norms will only get one so far. There are many aspects of Anglicanorum Coetibus that are truly innovative and for which there are no precedents.
Fr. Cole suggests that ordination of Anglican ministers sub conditione will still be permissible in cases of "prudent doubt" (CIC 845, §2). The commentary of Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J (released simultaneously with the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms) did not mention this possibility.
The good canonist's analysis doesn't bring much new information to the party, but it is posted here for the record.
For reference, the audio of the TAC Primate's talk to FiF UK can be found here.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
The AC is very clear that everyone will have to make a personal commitment. Probably some period of formal catechesis will be required. But this can be done within the structure of existing parishes and communities.
For a good example of how it worked in practice look at the Society of St. Thomas More in Scranton PA. Individual receptions done corporately.
We all need to keep a sense of humility as this comes together. Our Lord was willing to get dunked by John the Baptist even though he really didn't need it. Folks coming from Anglicanism won't even have to get wet.
Agreed. However there are quite a few "experts" out there who are suggesting that "converts from Anglicanism" undergo RCIA and receive the Sacraments of Initiation individually in the ordinary manner. This does not accord with what Archbishop Hepworth said at FiF UK and it simply will not work (at least for the ACA/TAC). As for catechesis, many of our communities are already teaching from the CCC; we have come to this point because we do have a right understanding of the nature of the Church and communion with the Holy See. I am not suggesting that some additional preparation might not be appropriate, but I would be interested in hearing what form this catechesis might take.
People have been sceptical about Hepworth's statements in the past (e.g. when he claimed to be in serious discussions with the Holy See), but as A.C. has vindicated him, what he says perhaps deserves to be given at least equal weight with the statements of the experts. He at least has been talking to the Holy See – they haven't!
Indeed. Even now there are folks that cite Cardinal Kasper's recent comments and suggest that +Hepworth and the TAC had little if anything to do with the AC. Why there is this desire to denigrate the role played by the TAC is beyond me!
It is true that the TAC did not "negotiate" the terms of the AC. Our bishops sent an appeal to Rome for the realization of corporate communion. This appeal contained no demands or terms of any kind. It simply asked the authorities in Rome to consider our plea and propose to the TAC a way of achieving our goal of full communion. A select delegation of bishops of the TAC has been in very frequent contact with officials of the CDF. Through these conversations, the Holy See came to understand our concerns and the TAC bishops were kept abreast of the general outlines of the provisions to be made.
Why some commentators are dismissive of the role played by the Primate and other TAC bishops simply because +Hepworth didn't sit with the Pope in a smoke-filled room at the Vatican and negotiate the deal, I don't understand. +Hepworth has taken a lot of flak from without the TAC (and truth be told, he's not had an easy time with some of his own people), but everything has unfolded more-or-less (in some cases much more!) than the Primate predicted.
Archbishop Hepworth stands vindicated and the passing of time will make this clearer to all.
While they might not be expected to pop down to their local RC parish to undergo RCIA individually, there would still need to be a reception of the sacraments of initiation by each individual – even if this was done in a corporate ceremony within their own communities.
Their bishops/priests/hierarchies could not make a profession of faith on the individual's behalf any more than I could make a profession of faith on behalf of somebody I baptized.
Each individual person must make this step of their own free will, without coercion, even if it is within the context of a larger body of believers that they make it.
As for Kasper's comments about the TAC and ABp Hepworth: ignore them. It is not without reason that Kasper has been circumvented, notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary. He doesn't like the TAC because it has complicated his chummy liberal ecumenical relationship with the likes of Williams. The last thing he wants to see is a wave of traditional-minded Christians coming into communion with the Catholic Church.
The TAC sought reunion with Rome. The ACC claimed they wanted only communion with Rome. Yet, the ACC continues to release negative statements about the Holy Father, HG Archbishop Hepworth, TAC and Roman Catholicism. If they want only communion with Rome then why are they commenting about a document that has nothing to do with them? Answer: Because they always said that HG Archbishop Hepworth would never get Rome to listen to him! Simple case of sour grapes!
Why would you RSVP for a party to which you were not invited? Isn't it astonishing how many Anglican provinces and jurisdictions felt the need to "respond" to the offer of the Holy Father in Anglicanorum Coetibus? While the offer no doubt stands for all Anglican Christians who may wish to avail themselves of it, it is clear that the initiative was a >>response to<< the TAC and FiF UK. No response on the part of these other groups was necessary.
I am not aware of other official negative statements emanating from the ACC besides Bishop Mark Haverland's (which is posted prominently on the ACC web site), but if you mean the nonsense at the Anglican Continuum blog (staffed by ACC priests who, at least, presume to speak for the ACC — and that regularly and quite stridently), yes it is becoming ridiculous. They all appear a bunch of anti-Roman bigots. How sad.
The Apostolic Constitution 'Anglicanorum coetibus' is complementary to the Code of Canon Law.
I shall pick up on the two points which you have highlighted:
Firstly, each person wishing to become a Catholic has to make the requisite profession of faith, regardless of his or her ecclesial origins – this is why CN 5, §1 refers to the lay faithful originally of the Anglican communion making their profession of faith. This is normally done on an individual basis; however, there is nothing to prevent everyone making that individual profession of faith communally when they are received into the full communion of the Catholic Church.
You mention that Fr Ghirlanda's article does not mention the possiblity of former Anglican clergymen being ordained 'sub conditione'; it does not need to, since that is provided by the law itself (c 834, §2). Hence, the late Mgr Graham Leonard was ordained to the priesthood 'sub conditione' because there was the 'prudent doubt' referred to in this canon. I should think that most former Anglican clergymen who wish to become Catholics will, as now, be ordained unconditionally, although that will be a decision that is reserved to the Apostolic See and not to any eventual diocesan Bishop or Ordinary.
I hope that this clarifies matters for you. My article was not intended to comment on the Ordinariates – that will come in the future, once they have been established – but rather to explain what the Ordinariates are and what they will do.